Invited Commentary: Induced Abortion and the Risk of Preeclampsia in a Subsequent Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is well established that a having a pregnancy that ends in a birth protects against subsequent preeclampsia, it is unclear whether a pregnancy ending in miscarriage or induced abortion confers any protection. In this issue of the Journal, Parker et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(8):663-669) examine whether, in nulliparous women, a history of induced abortion is associated with a lower risk of preeclampsia in a later pregnancy, focusing on the hypothesis that endometrial injury facilitates later implantation. The authors take advantage of data obtained by linking several Finnish population-based registries that include detailed data on induced abortions, although information on miscarriages was of lower quality. Parker et al. found a modest reduction in risk among women with a history of induced abortion. However, there was little evidence that risk differed between women who had medical abortions and those who had surgical abortions (the latter of which is presumably associated with a higher degree of injury). History of miscarriage was not associated with preeclampsia risk. Although the study by Parker et al. adds to the evidence that suggests that women with a history of induced abortion have a lower risk of preeclampsia, it is difficult to evaluate whether the observed association is due to having had a previous pregnancy (however short) versus none, to confounding, or to an actual effect of induced abortion.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".