The outcomes of pregnancy in patients with cirrhosis: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outcomes of pregnancy in patients with cirrhosis are poorly described. Our objective was to assess obstetric outcomes in cirrhotic women and their infants from a population-based perspective. METHODS: We analysed the 1993-2005 US Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to identify obstetric hospitalizations among patients with cirrhosis (n=339) and controls matched on age, hospital and year (n=6625). The effect of cirrhosis on maternal and fetal outcomes was evaluated using regression models with adjustment for patient and hospital factors. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2005, 114 antepartum and 225 delivery admissions in cirrhotic patients were identified. The estimated mean number of deliveries nationwide increased from 68 to 106 annually between 1993 and 1999 and 2000 and 2005 (P=0.0004). Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to deliver by caesarean [42 vs. 28%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.88]. Maternal (1.8 vs. 0%; P<0.0001) and fetal mortality (5.2 vs. 2.1%; P<0.0001), antepartum admission (OR 2.97; 95% CI 2.24-3.96), and maternal (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.60-2.57) and fetal complications (OR 3.66; 95% CI 2.74-4.88) were greater among cirrhotic patients than controls. Gestational hypertension, placental abruption and uterovaginal haemorrhage were more common in patients with cirrhosis; their infants had higher rates of prematurity and growth restriction. Hepatic decompensation occurred in 15%, including ascites in 11% and variceal haemorrhage in 5%. In women with decompensation, maternal and fetal mortality were 6 and 12% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although rare, pregnancies among women with cirrhosis are increasing. Cirrhotic patients and their infants have an increased risk of obstetric complications, emphasizing the importance of close maternal-fetal monitoring during 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".