Effects of gestational exposures to chemical mixtures on birth weight using Bayesian factor analysis in the Health Outcome and Measures of Environment (HOME) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying the effects of gestational exposures to chemical mixtures on infant birth weight is inconclusive due to several challenges. One of the challenges is which statistical methods to rely on. Bayesian factor analysis (BFA), which has not been utilized for chemical mixtures, has advantages in variance reduction and model interpretation. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cohort of 384 pregnant women and their newborns using urinary biomarkers of phthalates, phenols, and organophosphate pesticides (OPs) and serum biomarkers of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). We examined the association between exposure to chemical mixtures and birth weight using BFA and compared with multiple linear regression (MLR) and Bayesian kernel regression models (BKMR). RESULTS: For BFA, a 10-fold increase in the concentrations of PCB and PFAS mixtures was associated with an 81 g (95% confidence intervals [CI] = -132 to -31 g) and 57 g (95% CI = -105 to -10 g) reduction in birth weight, respectively. BKMR results confirmed the direction of effect. However, the 95% credible intervals all contained the null. For single-pollutant MLR, a 10-fold increases in the concentrations of multiple chemicals were associated with reduced birth weight, yet the 95% CI all contained the null. Variance inflation from MLR was apparent for models that adjusted for copollutants, resulting in less precise confidence intervals. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the merits of BFA on mixture analysis in terms of precision and interpretation compared with MLR and BKMR. We also identified the association between exposure to PCBs and PFAS and lower birth weight.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".