MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327554141 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15335-1

Paternal preconception modifiable risk factors for adverse pregnancy and offspring outcomes: a review of contemporary evidence from observational studies

2023· review· en· W4327554141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tristan Carter, Danielle Schoenaker, Jon Adams, Amie Steel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAustralian Government
KeywordsMedicineOffspringCINAHLPregnancyObservational studyCohort studyMEDLINEPsycINFOReproductive medicineEnvironmental healthReproductive healthFamily medicinePopulationPsychological interventionPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The preconception period represents transgenerational opportunities to optimize modifiable risk factors associated with both short and long-term adverse health outcomes for women, men, and children. As such, preconception care is recommended to couples during this time to enable them to optimise their health in preparation for pregnancy. Historically, preconception research predominately focuses on maternal modifiable risks and health behaviours associated with pregnancy and offspring outcomes; limited attention has been given to inform paternal preconception health risks and outcomes. This systematic review aims to advance paternal preconception research by synthesising the current evidence on modifiable paternal preconception health behaviours and risk factors to identify associations with pregnancy and/or offspring outcomes. METHODS: of January 2023, a date limit was set [2012-2023] in each database. A Google Scholar search was also conducted identifying all other relevant papers. Studies were included if they were observational, reporting associations of modifiable risk factors in the preconception period among males (e.g., identified as reproductive partners of pregnant women and/or fathers of offspring for which outcomes were reported) with adverse pregnancy and offspring outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Exposure and outcome heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and results were summarised in tables. RESULTS: This review identified 56 cohort and nine case control studies. Studies reported on a range of risk factors and/or health behaviours including paternal body composition (n = 25), alcohol intake (n = 6), cannabis use (n = 5), physical activity (n = 2), smoking (n = 20), stress (n = 3) and nutrition (n = 13). Outcomes included fecundability, IVF/ISCI live birth, offspring weight, body composition/BMI, asthma, lung function, leukemia, preterm birth, and behavioural issues. Despite the limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity in reporting, results of studies assessed as good quality showed that paternal smoking may increase the risk of birth defects and higher paternal BMI was associated with higher offspring birthweight. CONCLUSION: The current evidence demonstrates a role of paternal preconception health in influencing outcomes related to pregnancy success and offspring health. The evidence is however limited and heterogenous, and further high-quality research is needed to inform clinical preconception care guidelines to support men and couples to prepare for a health pregnancy and child.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.628
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations78
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207