Author’s information (optional)
Url Link
The hyperlink to my paper’s website.
Methods
First trimester blood samples were placed on ice immediately after being drawn and centrifuged within an hour. Plasma was stored at − 80 ◦C until analysis.
Write your translation on the next line:
During the first three months, blood samples were taken and placed on ice immediately. Within an hour, the samples were centrifuged. The plasma was stored at -80 C until it was ready to be tested.
Introduction
Further, prenatal exposure to particulate matter (PM) has been associated with poorer mental and psychomotor skills in offspring at 6 months (Kim et al., 2014) and at 2 years of age (Wang et al., 2021). Greater exposure to air pollution in late gestation has been related to more behavioral problems.
Write your translation on the next line:
At 6 months and 2 years of age, harmful exposure to air pollution during pregnancy was linked to poorer mental and psychomotor skills. During the third trimester, greater exposure to air pollution was linked to an increase in behavioral problems.
Results
Participants with complete data did not differ significantly from those without complete data with respect to maternal age, income to needs ratio, child age at follow-up, sex, or race (see Supplemental Table 1). There was a marginally significant (t(100) =-1.92, p =.058) difference with respect to gestational age, such that those participants with complete data had a higher gestational age at birth (M =39.23, SD =0.13) than did those without complete data (M =38.63, SD =0.31).
Write your translation on the next line:
Participants did not significantly differ with factors such as maternal age, income to needs ratio, child age at follow-up, sex or race even if the data was completed or not. However, there was a small difference in Gestational age than those who were born slightly later in pregnancy (M= 39.23, SD=0.13).
Discussion
Paste quoted text from the Discussion section of the article on the next line. Do not include quotation marks:
Considered collectively, our findings suggest that gestational exposure to air pollution, particularly pollution from wildfires, has the potential to disrupt fetal developmental processes with enduring effects.
Write your translation on the next line:
According to the findings, exposure to wildfire air pollution during pregnancy can potentially impact fetal developmental processes that may have lasting effects.
Future Directions
The future direction that should follow up on this work is assessing the children after the age of 5, since 3-5 was the age limit in the study, and following up to see if it causes further delays such as learning difficulties. Another future direction is having a more diverse sample size with participants from different backgrounds and socioeconomic status and seeing how the results differ.
Difficult Material
I think the most challenging material was definitely the results section. It was difficult to understand what specific variables meant and how it was being used in the analysis such as the correlation variables: (rho=.306) and understand how it was being applied. The figures were also challenging to interpret without not knowing the meaning of the values and how significant they are. I think it would be helpful to get an understanding of what these values mean.
BIOL 1593 – Assignment 2 Worksheet
URL link:
• Paste the hyperlink to the website containing the original posting about the paper –
NOT to the scientific paper itself (either the public posting webpage, or the Moodle
forum webpage):
https://moodle.tru.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=1212583
Additional Translation:
• From which section of the paper is this passage?
Results 3.1
• Paste quoted text on the next line. Do not include quotation marks or a bullet mark:
There was a marginally significant (t(100) = -1.92, p = .058) difference with respect to gestational age, such that those participants with complete data had a higher gestational age at birth (M = 39.23, SD = 0.13) than did those without complete data (M = 38.63, SD = 0.31).
• Write your translation on the next line:
Between participants who provided all of the information requested during the study,
and those who didn’t, was a difference between the average weeks gestation at birth,
but that difference was only barely statistically significant.
Additional Future Directions:
• What future research do you think should follow up on this work?
Paragraph 4 of the Discussion section makes an important statement about how the
maternal proteome is not a direct reflection of the fetal environment/development. I
think further research examining proteome correlation to the maternal-fetal
interactions reflecting shared exposure would give the findings of this study more
value.
Difficult Material (from original poster or subsequent student):
• What did the previous poster state was difficult to understand? (please copy and
paste their statement here):
I think the most challenging material was definitely the results section. It was difficult to
understand what specific variables meant and how it was being used in the analysis
such as the correlation variables: (rho=.306) and understand how it was being applied.
The figures were also challenging to interpret without not knowing the meaning of the
values and how significant they are. I think it would be helpful to get an understanding of
what these values mean.
• Please try to explain the difficult materials to the original poster, as best as you can.
(This is where you can help them understand what they found difficult.)
*Apologies for any misinformation, I tried to learn this for the sake of the assignment. I have
a high school level understanding of statistics.
The correlation variables, particularly the values given in section 3.2 (section mentioning
rho=.306) are describing the correlation between the data collected in within the sample
(from participants), and computer predictions made by known data collected from
samples. Section 3.2 aims to leverage this correlation to prove that maternal PM2 exposure
affects a fetus adversely.
The researchers are testing against a null hypothesis, which assumes that there is no
connection between compromised fetal development, and maternal exposure to smoke.
The null hypothesis assumes samples producing information contrary are simply random
and thus do not implicate anything about the population.
(ex. 1: Assuming high ambient PM2 and seemingly correlated changes in proteins, aren’t
correlated, and those results are coincidence)
(ex. 2: Assuming correlation found in pregnant people tested in California was coincidental
and implies nothing about the rest of pregnant people exposed to wildfire smoke)
These researchers used some kind of computer program (maybe another response can
explain it, I don’t understand it) to give a prediction of smoke exposure, based on the
information they imputed from the proteome data. How closely the computer’s prediction
aligned with the actual smoke exposure (which researchers already know, given by
Methods section 2.3) is how they proved that the sample wasn’t random, and there actually
BIOL 1593 – Assignment 2 Worksheet
is a relationship between a pregnant person’s PM2 exposure and potential developmental
deficits in their child after birth.
This is how rho and p, and their significance, are being applied in this study. Spearman’s
Rho is rated on a scale of (-1) to (+1) and describes the strength of the association between
2 variables after they’ve been converted to ranks. The p-value describes the probability that
the sample is random. The smaller the p-value, the less likely it is that the results were
random, and most often p<0.05 is the point at which it’s acceptable to reject the null
hypothesis. In section 3.2 of this study, {rho=.306, p=.004} compares variables given by the
observed data (actual, known PM2 exposure and proteome data of sample) with predicated
data (the PM2 exposure predicted by a computer, when given the proteome data).
Rho=.306 means that (with rho=0 meaning no connection) there is a small connection
between the two, and p=0.004 tells us that this result is not random and can be applied
when making an inference about entire population of pregnant people exposed to wildfire
smoke.
New Difficult Material (according to you):
• What did you not understand about this paper, that someone else can help with? If
you understood everything, then what did you find most challenging to understand?
I’m having trouble understanding their computer (xgboost) use during predictive modeling,
not only as described in the Results section but also in section 2.6.2 of the Methods
section. I understand what they’re using it for, but not what it is or how it works.