MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248712619 · doi:10.3410/f.739966361.793586311

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Association of epidural labor analgesia with offspring risk of autism spectrum disorders.

2021· dataset· en· W4248712619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ehab Farag, Mi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringMedicineHazard ratioPopulationProportional hazards modelConfoundingCohort studyPregnancyDemographyCohortSiblingPediatricsConfidence intervalPsychologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Epidural labor analgesia (ELA) has been associated with an increased offspring risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Whether this finding may be explained by residual confounding remains unclear.Objective: To assess the association between ELA and offspring risk of ASD.Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study of vaginal deliveries of singleton live infants born from 2005 to 2016 from a population-based data set linking information from health care databases in Manitoba, Canada; offspring were followed from birth until 2019 or censored by death or emigration. Data were analyzed from October 19, 2020, to January 22, 2021.Exposures: Epidural labor analgesia.Main Outcomes and Measures: At least 1 inpatient or outpatient diagnosis of ASD in offspring aged at least 18 months. For the full population and a sibling cohort, inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to control for potential confounders.Results: Of the 123 175 offspring included in this study (62 647 boys [50.9%]; mean [SD] age of mothers, 28.2 [5.8] years), 47 011 (38.2%) were exposed to ELA; 2.1% (985 of 47 011) of exposed vs 1.7% (1272 of 76 164) of unexposed offspring were diagnosed with ASD in the follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36). After adjusting for maternal sociodemographic, prepregnancy, pregnancy, and perinatal covariates, ELA was not associated with an offspring risk of ASD (inverse probability of treatment-weighted HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.97-1.20). In the within-siblings design adjusting for baseline covariates, ELA was not associated with ASD (inverse probability of treatment-weighted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.22). Results from sensitivity analyses restricted to women without missing data who delivered at or after 37 weeks of gestation, firstborn infants only, and offspring with ASD classified with at least 2 diagnostic codes were consistent with findings from the main analyses.Conclusions and Relevance: In a Canadian population-based birth cohort study, no association between ELA exposure and an increased offspring risk of ASD was found. PMID: 33871547

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4450.225

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFrench-language works237,207