MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W190225052

Prevalence of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in the USA: a meta analysis.

2013· article· en· W190225052 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas R. Einarson, Charles Piwko, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNauseaVomitingHyperemesis gravidarumPregnancyMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryObstetricsPediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is the most common medical condition during gestation, carrying tremendous health burden, especially for the severe form, hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). The rates of NVP in the USA have not been systematically calculated. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the rates of NVP and HG in the USA. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted of all peer-reviewed articles from the USA that provided rates of NVP in early or late pregnancy or HG. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through November 2012; reviews and articles were hand searched. Rates were combined across studies using a random effects model. RESULTS: Forty-eight articles were identified; 15 were rejected and 33 were included for analysis. Twenty-three studies of 67,602 women provided rates of NVP which had a meta-analytic rate of 68.6% (CI95%:64.4%-72.8%). Three of them (N=5034) reported nausea without vomiting in 28.6% and two studies (N=136) produced a rate for NVP during late pregnancy of 24.0%. HG occurred in 1.2% of the 2.1 million women in 12 studies. CONCLUSIONS: We have summarized rates of NVP and HG, which are similar to those found in other parts of the world. Almost 70% of women suffer some form of the syndrome; 1.2% have the severe form, most of whom were hospitalized because of the HG. Future research should address issues of cost and resource utilization.

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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207