MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977659264 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6961951

Association between gestational exposure and risk of orofacial clefts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· other· en· W6977659264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline Learning Methods and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalRelative riskCohort studyMeta-analysisFunnel plotOdds ratioRisk factorObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The occurrence of orofacial Clefts (OFCs) is a congenital disease caused by many factors. According to recent studies, air pollution has a strong correlation with the occurrence of OFCs. However, there are still some controversies about the current research results, and there is no relevant research to review the latest results in recent years. Objective In this paper, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the correlation between ambient air pollution and the occurrence of neonatal OFCs deformity. Methods We searched Pubmed, Web of science, and Embase databases from the establishment of the database to May 2023. We included observational studies on the relationship between prenatal exposure to fine particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), fine particulate matter 10 (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and the risk of cleft lip (CL), cleft palate (CP), cleft lip with or without palate (CL/P). the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. Funnel plot and Egger’s regression were used to verify the publication bias. Random effect model or fixed effect model was used to estimate the combined relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results A total of eleven studies were included in this study, including four cohort studies and seven case-control studies, including 22,453 cases of OFCs. Ten studies had low risk of bias and only one study had high risk of bias. Three studies reported that PM2.5 was positively correlated with CL and CP, with a combined RR and 95%CI of 1.287(1.174,1.411) and 1.267 (1.105,1.454). Two studies reported a positive correlation between O3 and CL, with a combined RR and 95%CI of 1.132(1.047,1.225). Two studies reported a positive correlation between PM10 and CL, with a combined RR and 95%CI of 1.108 (1.017,1.206). No association was found between SO2, CO, NO2 exposure during pregnancy and the risk of OFCs. Conclusion The results of this study showed that there was a significant statistical correlation between exposure to PM10, PM2.5, O3 and the risk of OFCs in the second month of pregnancy. Exposure assessment, research methods and mechanisms need to be further explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicOnline Learning Methods and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207