The effect of cigarette smoking on first‐trimester <scp>crown–rump</scp> length
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Does cigarette smoking impact the embryonic growth rate in the first trimester? Methods: This is a retrospective multicentre observational study of 2912 pregnancies. Women who presented to the early pregnancy and perinatal ultrasound units between 2010 and 2019 were included in the study. The data collected included the following: smoking status, the crown-rump length (CRL) of the pregnancy at the first ultrasound that showed an embryonic heart rate, the gestation in days and the CRL at another ultrasound up to the nuchal translucency scan and the gestation in days. Additional demographic data included the following: age, weight, height, parity and mode of delivery.Of the 2912, complete smoking and demographic data were available for 657 pregnancies. One hundred and thirty-seven (26.3%) were smokers, and 520 (73.7%) were not. The rate of change of smokers vs non-smokers between two CRLs and two different days of gestation was calculated. The Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction was used for statistical analysis. Results: = 31,940 and a P-value = 0.06. There is a slight shift in location for the smokers; however, it is not statistically significant. The insignificance may be due to the general large variance in growth rate. Conclusion: The impact of cigarette smoking on embryonic growth rate detected by CRL in the first trimester is statistically insignificant.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".