Epidemiologic Tools to Study the Influence of Environmental Factors on Fecundity and Pregnancy-related Outcomes
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
Adverse pregnancy outcomes entail a large health burden for the mother and offspring; a part of it might be avoided by better understanding the role of environmental factors in their etiology. Our aims were to review the assessment tools to characterize fecundity troubles and pregnancy-related outcomes in human populations and their sensitivity to environmental factors. For each outcome, we reviewed the possible study designs, main sources of bias, and their suggested cures. In terms of study design, for most pregnancy outcomes, cohorts with recruitment early during or even before pregnancy allow efficient characterization of pregnancy-related events, time-varying confounders, and in utero exposures that may impact birth outcomes and child health. Studies on congenital anomalies require specific designs, assessment of anomalies in medical pregnancy terminations, and, for congenital anomalies diagnosed postnatally, follow-up during several months after birth. Statistical analyses should take into account environmental exposures during the relevant time windows; survival models are an appropriate approach for fecundity, fetal loss, and gestational duration/preterm delivery. Analysis of gestational duration could distinguish pregnancies according to delivery induction (and possibly pregnancy-related conditions). In conclusion, careful design and analysis are required to better characterize environmental effects on human reproduction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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