Environmental exposures and fecundability: The Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have linked certain environmental exposures to reduced fecundability, influencing exposure recommendations. We continue to encounter numerous environmental exposures in our everyday lives, and further evidence is needed regarding their effects on fecundability. We evaluated associations between various self-reported environmental exposures and fecundability, measured as time to pregnancy, in 64,942 women and 53,219 men participating in the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort study (MoBa). Women reported on 17, and men on 19, environmental exposures, including heavy metals, pesticides, paints, and radiation. Fecundability ratios (FR) were estimated using log-binomial regression, comparing likelihood of conception during a given menstrual cycle between exposed versus unexposed participants. About 50 % of women and 75 % of men reported minimum one environmental exposure. Exposure to any pesticide (FR 0.94 [95 % CI 0.91–0.98]), and frequent exposure to photographic chemicals (FR 0.84 [95 % CI: 0.73–0.96]), was associated with decreased fecundability in women. We also observed a tendency of a slightly higher fecundability among women and men exposed to disinfectants (FR 1.02 [95 % CI: 1.00–1.04] and 1.03 [95 % CI: 1.00–1.06], respectively). Our results suggests that exposure to pesticides and photographic chemicals could affect women's fecundability. • Large cohort study evaluating environmental exposures' effect on fecundability. • 50% of women and 75% of men reported at least one exposure prior to conception. • Pesticide- and photographic chemicals were associated with reduced fecundability in women. • Disinfectants were slightly associated with increased fecundability in both sexes. • Pesticides and photographic chemicals pose reproductive health concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".