MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959440301 · doi:10.1002/cam4.2412

Maternal use of antibiotics and cancer incidence risk in offspring: A population‐based cohort study in Manitoba, Canada

2019· article· en· W2959440301 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xibiao Ye, Barret A. Monchka, Christiaan H. Righolt, Salaheddin M. Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Victoria
FundersChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyHazard ratioIncidence (geometry)ObstetricsCancerPopulationCohort studyConfidence intervalConfoundingCohortEpidemiologyAntibioticsProportional hazards modelGynecologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several epidemiological studies have found an association between maternal antibiotics use during pregnancy and increased risk of certain cancer types, although conclusions differ between studies. We examined this association in a cohort study including 262 116 mother-child pairs of Manitoba births between 1996 and 2013. Maternal antibiotics use during prepregnancy (6 months prior to pregnancy) and pregnancy periods was assessed. Children's cancer incidence was tracked up to the end of the follow-up period (December 2015). We calculated incidence rate and used Cox regression to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Antibiotics use during pregnancy was not associated with overall cancer (HR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.9-1.4), leukemias (1.3, 0.9-1.8), or acute lymphocytic leukemia (1.1, 0.7-1.6). The association between antibiotics use and overall cancer risk differed by trimester: 1.5 (1.1-1.9) in the first, 0.8 (0.6-1.0) in the second, and 1.1 (0.8-1.5) in the third trimester. Further research is necessary to confirm the association between first-trimester exposure and cancer risk after a better controlling of confounding factors.

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)0.000
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207