The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing Intrauterine Influences on Offspring Health Outcomes: Can Epidemiological Studies Yield Robust Findings?
Open accessAbstract
Abstract: The influence of factors acting during the intrauterine period on health outcomes of offspring is of considerable research and public health interest. There are, however, methodological challenges in establishing robust causal links, because exposures often act many decades before outcomes of interest, may act before it is evident that women are pregnant and would enter pregnancy birth cohorts, and may also be strongly related to other factors, generating considerable degrees of potential confounding. The degree of confounding can sometimes be estimated by comparing the association between exposures experienced by the mother during pregnancy and outcomes among the offspring with the association of exposures experienced by the father during the pregnancy period and offspring outcomes. If the effects are due to an intrauterine exposure, then maternal exposure during pregnancy should have a clearly greater influence than paternal exposure. A different approach is that of Mendelian randomization, which utilizes genetic variants of known functional effect that can proxy for modifiable exposures. If carried by the mother, these variants would influence the intrauterine environment experienced by her offspring. These genetic variants are stable over time and can be assessed after pregnancy is complete or even after outcomes in the offspring have been observed. The variants would also not generally be related to potential confounding factors. Other epidemiological strategies are briefly reviewed. It is concluded that the naïve acceptance of findings utilizing conventional epidemiological methods in this setting is misplaced.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The idea behind triangulation is that when we compare different approaches with assumed unrelated sources of bias, particularly if the expected direction of bias for some of the approaches is different, we would not expect to obtain the same estimates of the causal effect (unless all were unbiased).7,15”
From Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology (2017) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Davey Smith, G., & Ebrahim, S. (2003) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyg070 · Cited by 5,882
Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms
(2004) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/03684920410534506 · Cited by 4,937
(1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199404143301501 · Cited by 4,737
Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology
Lawlor, D. A., Harbord, R. M., Sterne, J. A. C., Timpson, N., & Davey Smith, G. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3034 · Cited by 4,618
Self-citationFrayling, T. M., Timpson, N. J., Weedon, M. N., Zeggini, E., Freathy, R. M., Lindgren, C. M., Perry, J. R. B., Elliott, K. S., Lango, H., Rayner, N. W., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1141634 · Cited by 4,531
Self-citationIdentification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902 · Cited by 4,230
Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease
Omenn, G. S., Goodman, G. E., Thornquist, M. D., Balmes, J., Cullen, M. R., Glass, A., Keogh, J. P., Meyskens, F. L., Valanis, B., Williams, J. H., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199605023341802 · Cited by 3,638
Prevention of neural tube defects: Results of the Medical Research Council Vitamin Study
(1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90133-a · Cited by 3,472
Czeizel, A. E., & Dudás, I. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199212243272602 · Cited by 3,200
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Manson J, 1991, A prospective study of antioxidant vitamins and incidence of coronary heart disease in women, Circulation, 84, II
- Davey Smith G, 2007, Bio‐Social Surveys: Current Insight and Future Promise
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies
Davey Smith, G., & Hemani, G. (2014) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddu328 · Cited by 4,677
Self-citationCohort Profile: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort
Fraser, A., Macdonald-Wallis, C., Tilling, K., Boyd, A., Golding, J., Davey Smith, G., Henderson, J., Macleod, J., Molloy, L., Ness, A., et al. (2013) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dys066 · Cited by 2,494
Self-citationTriangulation in aetiological epidemiology
Lawlor, D. A., Tilling, K., & Davey Smith, G. (2017) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyw314 · Cited by 1,129
Relton, C. L., & Davey Smith, G. (2012) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyr233 · Cited by 567
Self-citationSurén, P., Roth, C., Bresnahan, M., Haugen, M., Hornig, M., Hirtz, D., Lie, K. K., Lipkin, W. I., Magnus, P., Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., et al. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.155925 · Cited by 537
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, G. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, George Davey
- ORCID
- Smith, George Davey
- Venue
- Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01-22
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 245-256
- ISSN
- 1742-7835 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-7843
- OpenAlex
- W1564669788
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2009-10-13)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Birth, Development, and Health
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- prenatal exposure, offspring outcomes, paternal exposure, confounding, birth cohort studies, Mendelian randomization, causal inference, intrauterine environment
- MeSH terms
- Female, Genotype, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Genetic Variation, Epidemiologic Studies, Maternal Exposure, Paternal Exposure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
