Feasibility and acceptability of collecting umbilical cord tissue for prenatal cannabis research: A mixed-methods research study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large-scale longitudinal studies with biological samples are needed to examine the associations between prenatal cannabis use and birth and developmental outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to understand the feasibility and acceptability of collecting umbilical cord tissue for the purpose of cannabis use testing in a community sample. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods research study consisted of a prospective cohort study and a qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: This study was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia between January 2021 and August 2022. Participants were recruited during pregnancy, and the umbilical cord tissues were collected at birth and tested for the presence of cannabinoids. After the completion of the study, participants completed an online open-ended questionnaire about their overall experience. Data were analyzed using descriptive and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Among the 85 eligible individuals, 57 people (67%) consented to the study. The cord tissue was collected for 39 participants (68.4%). The collection rates for participants with vaginal, elective, and emergency cesarean delivery were 73.0%, 71.4%, and 53.8%, respectively, and for those with spontaneous and induced labor were 81.5% and 50%, respectively. Four (7.0%) and seven participants (12.3%) reported prenatal cannabis use in direct and probing self-report questions, respectively. The agreement between any self-report and cord tissue test was moderate (kappa 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.99). Qualitative findings were classified into five themes. CONCLUSION: The collection of cord tissue was perceived acceptable by most participants. Implementation of collection protocols for complex labors, a central hospital unit to liaise direct communications and active participants' involvement might increase the feasibility of future studies.
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 | 0.083 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".