Birth Weight as a Risk Factor for Childhood Leukemia: A Meta-Analysis of 18 Epidemiologic Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence has emerged that childhood leukemia is initiated in utero. High birth weight is one of the few birth-related factors that has been associated with childhood leukemia, albeit not consistently. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of studies of the association between birth weight and childhood leukemia risk. Study-specific odds ratios for leukemia were calculated, using a cutoff at 4,000 g of birth weight. The authors also evaluated whether the association between birth weight and leukemia followed a log-linear dose-response-like pattern. They calculated summary estimates using weighted averages of study-specific odds ratios from dichotomous and trend analyses. Eighteen studies (published between 1962 and 2002) were included, encompassing 10,282 children with leukemia. Children weighing 4,000 g or more at birth were at higher risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia than children weighing less (odds ratio (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17, 1.37). Furthermore, data were consistent with a dose-response-like effect (OR = 1.14/1,000-g birth weight increase, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.20). Studies of acute myeloid leukemia indicated a similar increase in risk for children weighing 4,000 g or more at birth (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.73, 2.20) and a dose-response-like effect (OR = 1.29/1,000 g, 95% CI: 0.80, 2.06), but results varied across studies. Our findings support a relation between birth weight and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia risk and emphasize the need for additional studies of the biologic mechanisms underlying this association.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.053 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it