Passive smoking and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pregestational smoking increases the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and is a common health problem during pregnancy, with its incidence on the rise worldwide, especially in China. This study is a meta-analysis of passive smoking as a risk factor associated with GDM. METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched passive smoking and the risk of GDM in PubMed, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Science Direct, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) and Wanfang databases (up to May 2023). The authors extracted the study data independently and used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of the included articles. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model depending on the size of the heterogeneity. Begg's and Egger's tests were performed to assess publication bias. RESULTS: =41.7%, p=0.079). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were stable, and no evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS: Passive smoking is a risk factor for GDM, even in those who are not active smokers. To eliminate the effects of other confounding factors, larger prospective cohort studies are required to clarify the relationship between passive smoking and the occurrence of GDM.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".