Paternal exposure to recreational drugs before conception and its effect on live‐born offspring: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Men of reproductive age increasingly use recreational drugs. While many of these substances may reduce the quantity and quality of sperm, less is known about the effects of these exposures on their offspring. We performed a scoping review to summarize the available literature and identify areas for future research on the outcome of live-born offspring of fathers who were exposed to recreational drugs before conception. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, which included keywords for the following substances: cannabis-related products, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, ecstasy and amphetamines. In total, 2,983 records were screened, and 129 publications were selected for full-text assessment. Publications were included if (a) the timing of exposure included the preconceptional period, and (b) if outcomes in live-born offspring were compared with an unexposed group. RESULTS: We included 30 publications, of which 15 animal studies and 15 human studies. Animal studies showed neurocognitive abnormalities, in particular in male offspring. Interestingly, these outcomes depend significantly on the method of exposure (i.e., fixed-dose administration vs. variable self-administration, which mimics addiction). Human studies were limited to specific congenital malformations and childhood cancers, which showed small increased odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: While animal studies describe impaired neurocognitive outcomes following paternal exposure to recreational drugs, data in humans is currently lacking. Human studies require sound methodology in order to confirm findings on congenital malformations and childhood cancers. In addition, future neurocognitive studies require parental neurocognitive assessments to correct for confounding effects (i.e., role of genetics).
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".