ArticleToxicology and environmental health sciences2026
Effects of maternal arsenic exposure on birth outcomes using harmonized data across three birth cohorts.
Article in Toxicology and environmental health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the association between urinary arsenic concentrations and birth outcomes by harmonizing data from three independent birth cohorts. Methods: We harmonized and analyzed data from the Navajo Birth Cohort Study (NBCS), the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study (NHBCS), and the PROTECT Center study based on Puerto Rico. Birth outcomes of interest included birth weight, head circumference, birth length, gestational age at delivery, incidence of preterm birth, and size for gestational age. Urinary arsenic concentrations were used as the primary exposure metric. Harmonization involved aligning variable formats, adjusting for differences in laboratory methods, and excluding incompatible covariates, such as income and race. Results: Harmonization increased the total sample size ( Conclusions: While harmonizing data across multiple cohorts increased the sample size, it did not necessarily enhance statistical power or strengthen observed associations. Differences in data collection, laboratory methods, and available covariates posed significant challenges. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting pooled results from heterogeneous sources and highlight the importance of prospective planning for data harmonization in multi-cohort studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.