Advanced Maternal Age and the Risk of Cesarean Birth: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing pregnancy rate at advanced maternal age is contemporaneous with the increasing rate of cesarean birth. Several studies have found that advanced maternal age is a risk factor for cesarean birth. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the relationship between advanced maternal age and cesarean birth among nulliparous and multiparous women. METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we searched the literature for articles published from January 1, 1995 to March 1, 2008, using Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. We also hand-searched the bibliographies of retrieved articles to identify additional related studies. We included all cohort studies and all case-control studies that examined this association in developed countries. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software (5.0) was used to summarize the data. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All studies demonstrated an increased risk of cesarean birth among women at advanced maternal age compared with younger women, for both nulliparas and multiparas (relative risk varied from 1.39 to 2.76). Because we found extreme heterogeneity (both statistical and clinical) among the included studies, we did not provide a pooled estimate of the risk of cesarean birth. CONCLUSIONS: All included studies illustrated an increased risk of cesarean birth among older women. Fifteen studies adjusted this association for potential confounders, which suggests that a valid and independent association is likely to exist between advanced maternal age and cesarean birth. However, the associated factors for this increased risk are not totally understood in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".