Sarcoidosis and pregnancy: obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in a population-based cohort of 7 million births
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Data on sarcoidosis in pregnancy is sparse and limited to a few case reports and series. Our aim is to determine the prevalence of sarcoidosis at delivery, and related maternal and newborn outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Using the United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) from 2003 to 2010, we conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to compare women with and without sarcoidosis at delivery. We calculated the prevalence of sarcoidosis in pregnancy and used logistic regression analyses to estimate the associated risks of maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: There were 678 cases of sarcoidosis in 7,094,400 births over an 8-year period for an overall prevalence of nine and six-tenths cases per 100,000 births. Compared with controls, women with sarcoidosis were older, more likely to be African American and to report being smokers. Women with sarcoidosis were more likely to have preeclampsia odds ratio (OR) 1.62 (95% CI 1.18-2.22), eclampsia OR 5.27 (95% CI 1.69-16.40), deep vein thrombosis OR 4.92 (95% CI 1.58-15.33), pulmonary embolism OR 6.68 (95% CI 3.99-11.21), and premature delivery OR 1.73 (95% CI 1.40-2.15). There was also an increased risk of cesarean deliveries and postpartum hemorrhages. There were no cases of maternal death reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcoidosis in pregnancy is a rare disease associated with an increased risk of adverse obstetrical outcomes. Women with sarcoidosis can carry out successful pregnancies, however should be made aware of the higher risk of adverse events. Given the higher risk of venous thromboembolic events, consideration should be given to thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".