Breathing in the Future: Unraveling the Link Between Prenatal Outdoor Air Pollution and Neurodevelopment in Offspring: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Air pollution exposure has been associated with general negative effects on the nervous system and, consequently, on children’s neurodevelopment. This review aims to assess the main damages of prenatal air pollution exposure on the offspring’s neurodevelopment. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, Ovid, and Scopus. The studies from the last ten years were assessed in compliance with PRISMA 2020 Guidelines and evaluated regarding quality. Results: From an initial 675 references, 24 observational studies encompassing 115,228 children aged 0 to 10 years were deemed eligible. On average, the women in the studies were around 30 years old at delivery. Various exposure assessment methods, pollutants, and neurodevelopmental outcome scales were utilized. All the studies included found an association between air pollutant exposure and neurodevelopment in different magnitudes. All 24 studies included in our review were observational and, therefore, assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Of them, 19 were considered good quality, 1 was fair quality, and 4 were poor quality. Conclusion: This comprehensive review presents evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to air pollution has a harmful impact on cognitive and neurological development in offspring. However, future studies are needed to corroborate these results.
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 | 0.127 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".