Residential proximity to major roads and fecundability in a preconception cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence from animal and human studies indicates that exposure to traffic-related air pollution may adversely affect fertility. METHODS: Among 7,342 female pregnancy planners from the United States and 1,448 from Canada, we examined the association between residential proximity to major roads and fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception. From 2013 to 2019, women 21-45 years old who were trying to conceive without fertility treatment completed an online baseline questionnaire and follow-up questionnaires every 8 weeks for up to 12 months or until pregnancy. We geocoded residential addresses reported at baseline and during follow-up, and calculated distance to nearest major roads and length of major roads within buffers of 50, 100, 300, and 400 meters around the residence as proxies for traffic-related air pollution. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics. RESULTS: In the United States, the FR comparing women who lived <50 meters with those who lived ≥400 meters from the closest major road was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.80, 0.98). The association among Canadian women was similar in magnitude, but less precise (FR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.74, 1.16). Likewise, length of major roads within buffers of 50 and 100 meters was associated with lower fecundability in both countries; associations were attenuated within larger buffers. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the hypothesis that traffic-related air pollution or other near-road exposures may adversely affect fecundability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".