End-tidal carbon monoxide measurements in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the end-tidal carbon monoxide breath levels in pregnant women with and without pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: We prospectively performed end-tidal carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide in nonsmoking women during late gestation (>31 weeks). The study group included 22 women with pregnancy-induced hypertension or symptoms of preeclampsia and a control group of 20 normotensive pregnant women. RESULTS: The carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide (mean +/- SD) were significantly lower (P <.01) in the hypertensive group than in the control group (1.17 +/- 0.35 vs 1.70 +/- 0.54 ppm). The study group had a significantly higher number of low (<1.2 ppm) end-tidal carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide (13 [59.1%] vs 1 [5.0%]; P <.001). The end-tidal carbon monoxide measurements corrected for ambient carbon monoxide remained significantly lower in comparison with those found in the control group when the study group was divided into women with pregnancy-induced hypertension only (n = 11) and those with preeclampsia (n = 11) (1.19 +/- 0.37 ppm; P <.01; and 1.15 +/- 0.41 ppm; P <.01; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that carbon monoxide formation may be significantly lower in women with pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. These data suggest that carbon monoxide could have a contributory role in the apparent paradox of the seemingly protective effect of smoking to decrease the risk of preeclampsia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".