High Body Mass Index in Pregnancy, Its Effects on Maternal and Fetal Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : To examine the maternal and foetal risks of adverse pregnancy outcome in obese women (BMI > 30). Methods : This study is a prospective non randomized descriptive study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of KIMS in Narketpally from April 2007 to April 2009, 100 women with high BMI were compared with 100 women with normal BMI with regard to ante-natal complications, intervention in labour, maternal morbidity and neonatal outcome. Results: Compared to women with normal BMI, the following outcomes were significantly more common in obese pregnant women (odds ratio (95% confidence interval)) for BMI > 30 gestational diabetes mellitus (4.8 (1.01 - 3.02)); pre-eclampsia ( 2.52 (1.04 - 6.11 )) ; macrosomia ( 13.8 (3.1 - 60.57)) ; caesarean section ( 3.45 (1.65 - 7.15)) and infections ( 1.7 (0.39 - 7.32)). Conclusions: This study points out a strong association between maternal morbid obesity in early pregnancy and a number of threatening complications during pregnancy, delivery, and in the neonatal period. doi:10.4021/jcgo2w
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".