Is there any more complete reporting of this study with additional detail on confounding variables? As the journal article is written, the handling of serious potential confounds (mainly socioeconomic status, but potentially others such as tobacco, alcohol and stress) is presented more or less on a “trust me” basis.

At the very least, it seems that the relative predictive power of those variables should be discussed alongside the study variable, both in the lit review and in the analysis. How strongly are age, socioeconomic status (income, education, ethnicity), marital status, and tobacco use related to head circumference and fetal weight, based on previous studies?

Using the same exact data set and statistical approach for treating confounding variables, how well would those factors have predicted those same dependent variables?

Importantly, would socio-economic status have predicted head size and fetal weight better than MJ use given the same regression approach (i.e. treating MJ use as a confounding, rather than dependent, variable)?

How can one judge the predictive power of MJ use without any context as to effect size (in cm and grams) relative to what has been found in studies of those intuitively important variables?

The reader has nothing to go on in this article to answer the above questions – no footnotes for studies on those other variables, no access to raw data, and no detailed discussion of the statistical techniques used (or metrics related to the strengths of relationships among any variables other than the chosen independent and dependent variables).