Effect of In-Utero Antibiotic Exposure on Childhood Outcomes: Methods and Baseline Data of the Fetal Antibiotic EXposure (FAX) Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of antepartum and intrapartum antibiotics has raised concerns about the possible disruption of the child's gut microbiota and effects on the maturation from the infant to the adult microbiome. The Fetal Antibiotic EXposure (FAX) study provides a cohort to examine the association between in-utero exposure to antibiotics and adverse childhood outcomes including body weight, atopic diseases, and autism spectrum disorders and to investigate the role of other potential factors mitigating or moderating the risk for adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to describe the methods, cohort characteristics, and retention of infants included in the study cohort. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we included children born in Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) hospitals between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, within 22 to 44 completed weeks of gestation with KPSC insurance coverage during the first year of life. Follow-up data collection was performed through electronic medical records. RESULTS: The study cohort was comprised 223,431 children of which 65.7% (146,720/223,431) were exposed to antibiotics in-utero: 19.0% (42,511/223,431) were exposed during the antepartum period, 30.0% (66,896/223,431) during the intrapartum period, and 16.7% (37,313/223,431) exposed during both the antepartum and intrapartum periods. During their first year of life, children had a median of 5 weight and height measurements; the frequency of weight and height measurements declined to a median of 3 in their second year of life and 2 for 3 to 5 years of age. The 5-year retention of children in the health plan was over 80% with the highest retention for Hispanic children. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of children will provide a unique opportunity to address key questions regarding the long-term sequelae of in-utero exposure to antibiotics using real-world data. The high retention and multiple medical visits over time allow us to model the trajectories of body mass index over time. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12065.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".