Is fetal nuchal cord associated with autism spectrum disorder? A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is inconsistent evidence about the association between fetal nuchal cord and the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We performed a meta-analysis to investigate whether fetal nuchal cord is associated with an increased risk of ASD in offspring. METHODS: Three main English databases were searched until January 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Study heterogeneity was determined using the I2 statistic, while publication bias was assessed using Begg and Egger tests. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) and relative ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and were determined by a random-effects model. RESULTS: Five articles (1 cohort, 4 case-control; 3,088 total children) were included in the present meta-analysis. Fetal nuchal cord was not a risk factor for ASD (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.66-1.57). There was homogeneity among studies that reported a risk of ASD (I2=0.0%). CONCLUSION: Our results showed that fetal nuchal cord is not a risk factor for ASD. Future large cohort studies should confirm this finding.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".