MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130859436 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.058552

Work Activity in Pregnancy, Preventive Measures, and the Risk of Delivering a Small-for-Gestational-Age Infant

2006· article· en· W2130859436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Agathe Croteau, Sylvie Marcoux, Chantal Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyOdds ratioOddsSmall for gestational ageObstetricsEnvironmental healthDemographyGestationPediatricsLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We undertook a case-control study to evaluate whether some occupational conditions during pregnancy increase the risk of delivering a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant and whether taking measures to eliminate these conditions decreases that risk. METHODS: The 1536 cases and 4441 controls were selected from 43898 women who had single live births between January 1997 and March 1999 in Québec, Canada. The women were interviewed by telephone after delivery. RESULTS: The risk of having an SGA infant increased with an irregular or shift-work schedule alone and with a cumulative index of the following occupational conditions: night hours, irregular or shift-work schedule, standing, lifting loads, noise, and high psychological demand combined with low social support. When the conditions were not eliminated, the risk increased with the number of conditions (P(trend) =.004; odds ratios=1.00, 1.08, 1.28, 1.43, and 2.29 for 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4-6 conditions, respectively). Elimination of the conditions before 24 weeks of pregnancy brought the risks close to those of unexposed women. CONCLUSIONS: Certain occupational conditions experienced by pregnant women can increase their risk of having an SGA infant, but preventive measures can reduce the risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations141
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207