Outcomes in the offspring of mothers with pre-diabetes during pregnancy: a protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing prevalence of pre-diabetes worldwide, there is insufficient literature on the impact of gestational pre-diabetes on offspring outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the risk of developing adverse outcomes for the offspring in women with pre-diabetes compared to women with normal glucose levels and women with gestational diabetes mellitus. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic search of the published literature will be conducted for experimental and observational studies that report outcomes in the offspring of mothers with pre-diabetes during pregnancy. Databases including EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubMed will be searched from 1979 (the year when the terms impaired glucose tolerance and pre-diabetes were coined) to December 2014. Screening of identified articles and data extraction will be conducted in duplicate and independently. Methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or by consulting a third author. Meta-analyses will be performed, and findings will be reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. DISCUSSION: Determining the effect of pre-diabetes on offspring outcome will be important for clinicians providing care to pregnant women and their offspring. This review will also identify any gaps in the current literature on this topic and provide direction for future research in this area of study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015015536.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".