MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796311887 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.23127

Relationship between adrenal steroid hormones in cord blood and birth weight: The Sapporo Cohort, Hokkaido Study on Environment and Children's Health

2018· article· en· W2796311887 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Takahiko Mitsui, Atsuko Araki, Houman Goudarzi, Chihiro Miyashita, Sachiko Ito, Seiko Sasaki, Takeya Kitta, Kimihiko Moriya, Kazutoshi Cho, Keita Morioka, Reiko Kishi, Nobuo Shinohara, Masayuki Takeda, Katsuya Nonomura

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Health, British ColumbiaMiljøministeriet
KeywordsCortisoneDehydroepiandrosteroneAndrostenedioneMedicineBirth weightEndocrinologyInternal medicineCord bloodHormoneLow birth weightCohortPhysiologyProspective cohort studyBiologyPregnancyAndrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the relationship between steroid hormone levels in cord blood and birth weight. METHODS: Among 514 participants in a prospective birth cohort study in Sapporo, the following hormone levels were measured in 294 stored cord blood samples from 135 males and 159 females: androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), cortisol, and cortisone. Birth weight information was obtained from medical records. RESULTS: Androstenedione/DHEA was significantly higher in males than in females, while DHEA was significantly higher in females. Birth weight was significantly higher in males than in females. Regarding cortisone, androstenedione/DHEA, and cortisone/cortisol, a correlation was observed with birth weight in males but not in females. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal adrenal steroids as well as converting enzymes such as 11ß-hydrosteroid dehydrogenase type 2 and 3ß-hydrosteroid dehydrogenase may have an impact on prenatal physical development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207