Association between maternal exposure to oil and gas extraction process with adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oil and gas extraction plays a critical role in global energy supply and economic development, but it is increasingly associated with adverse health outcomes, particularly during pregnancy. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the relationship between maternal exposure to oil and gas pollutants and selected adverse birth outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to June 16, 2024. We included studies assessing the effects of maternal exposure to oil and gas extraction processes on preterm birth (PTB), miscarriage, stillbirth, birth defects, small for gestational age (SGA), low birth weight (LBW), and birth weight (BW). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE framework. From 4,235 screened articles, 24 studies met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Our analyses revealed statistically significant associations between maternal exposure and increased odds of PTB (pooled OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), miscarriage (OR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.60-2.58), SGA (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.05-1.45), and reduced BW (mean difference: -30.36 g, 95% CI: -43.98 to -17.28). No significant associations were observed for stillbirth (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.68-1.40), birth defects (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.84-1.53), or LBW (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.93-1.24). Substantial heterogeneity was present across most outcomes, and publication bias could not be ruled out in several analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest possible associations between maternal exposure to oil and gas extraction processes and several adverse birth outcomes, including PTB, miscarriage, SGA, and LBW. However, due to methodological variability, potential biases, and high heterogeneity among studies, these results should be interpreted with caution. Further research with standardized exposure assessments and larger, population-based cohorts is needed to confirm and refine these associations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".