MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161716543 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwm311

Maternal Smoking, Alcohol Consumption, and Caffeine Consumption during Pregnancy in Relation to a Son's Risk of Persistent Cryptorchidism: A Prospective Study in the Child Health and Development Studies Cohort, 1959–1967

2007· article· en· W2161716543 on OpenAlexaff
Morgana Mongraw‐Chaffin, Barbara A. Cohn, Richard. D. Cohen, Roberta E. Christianson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyOdds ratioInterquartile rangeProspective cohort studyObstetricsConfidence intervalCohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Child Health and Development Studies is a > or =40-year follow-up of 20,754 pregnancies occurring between 1959 and 1967 in California. There were 84 cases of undescended testes at birth persisting to at least age 2 years among 7,574 liveborn sons whose mothers were interviewed in early pregnancy. Cases were matched to three controls on birth year and race. Compared with mothers of controls, mothers of cryptorchid boys consumed more caffeine during pregnancy (odds ratio = 1.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 1.9 for an interquartile range equivalent to three cups of coffee per day) but were not more likely to smoke or drink alcohol when all behaviors were considered together. Other maternal and perinatal risk factors were not significantly associated with persistent cryptorchidism and did not confound the association with caffeine.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207