MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968242612 · doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2014.01.031

Is sleep-disordered breathing associated with miscarriages? An emerging hypothesis

2014· article· en· W1968242612 on OpenAlexaff
Elliott Kyung Lee, Spencer Thomas Gutcher, Alan B. Douglass

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Hypotheses · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiscarriageMedicinePregnancyPopulationLuteinizing hormoneObstetricsGynecologyHormoneEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a common disorder that has numerous medical consequences including cardiovascular morbidity. The clinical presentation in women is frequently vague, leading to its under-recognition in this population. Sleep is known to influence several female hormonal cycles including estrogen, progesterone, prolactin, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH); consequently, sleep disruption may have adverse effects on female health including pregnancy. Miscarriage, defined as the loss of a pregnancy in the first trimester, occurs in one in four pregnancies; in up to half of cases, the cause may be unknown. Risk factors for miscarriage include increased age, increased weight, and a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, all of which are also risk factors for SDB. Since SDB is frequently accompanied by sleep fragmentation and intermittent hypoxemia, we speculate that these factors may contribute to miscarriage risk. If this is the case, then treatment of SDB may be a possible intervention for subsequent pregnancies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical HypothesesSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207