Is maternal periconceptional smoking associated with 2D:4D digit ratio in their children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2nd--4th finger ratio (2D:4D) has been proposed as a potential indicator of greater androgen exposure during fetal development. Maternal periconceptional smoking may alter the homeostasis of fetal androgens, which could in turn result in differential development of 2D:4Ds in utero. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of maternal periconceptional smoking (i.e. 1 year before through the first trimester of pregnancy) on the 2D:4D of children within The Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study. Maternal smoking history was obtained through questionnaires during the first trimester of pregnancy in 2001 women from 10 cities across Canada. The periconceptional smoking prevalence was 12%. A follow-up study was conducted to measure growth and development up to 5 years of age in a subsample of some 800 MIREC children (MIREC-CD Plus), and digital pictures of the ventral surface of both hands were obtained in mothers and children (2-5 years). The 2D:4D was calculated as the ratio of the 2nd and 4th fingers of each hand. Boys had lower mean 2D:4Ds compared with girls in both hands. Age and maternal 2D:4D were strong determinants of the children's 2D:4D, however, the mean 2D:4D did not differ among children whose mothers had smoked during the periconceptional period compared with those who had not, irrespective of sex. In conclusion, we did not find an association between maternal periconceptional smoking and children's 2D:4D, although the smoking prevalence was low.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".