Late First-Trimester Placental Disruption and Subsequent Gestational Hypertension/Preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential relationship between placental disruption in weeks 13 and 14 and the subsequent development of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia. METHODS: Using subjects recruited during a randomized trial funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which compared early amniocentesis and late transabdominal chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in weeks 13 and 14, rates of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia were compared between cases with varying degrees of placental disruption. RESULTS: A total of 3,698 of 3,775 randomized subjects had cytogenetically normal pregnancies and were analyzed. A significantly higher rate of hypertension/preeclampsia was observed in the late CVS group (5.4%, n = 1,878) compared with the early amniocentesis cohort (3.5%, n = 1,820; P = .005). This difference persisted after controlling for maternal age, body mass index, parity, previous preterm delivery, smoking, and fetal gender. Early amniocentesis cases were further stratified on the basis of whether the placenta had been penetrated (n = 460) or not (n = 1,360). Risk of hypertensive complications was lowest if the placenta was not traversed (3.4%), greater with placental penetration (3.9%), and highest when the placenta was directly sampled during CVS (5.4%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: We hypothesize that focal disruption of the placenta at 13-14 weeks may increase the risk of hypertension/preeclampsia. These findings provide support for the theory that disturbances in early placentation lead subsequently to maternal hypertension.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".