Association between hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and end-stage renal disease: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies into the association between hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and end-stage renal disease are limited. We investigated the risk of end-stage renal disease after delivery among women with hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. METHODS: We used insurance claims data from 1998 to 2009 to identify 26,651 women aged 19-40 years old who experienced hypertensive disorders during pregnancy; these women had no history of hypertension, diabetes, kidney disease or lupus. We also randomly selected 213,397 women without hypertensive disorders during pregnancy as a comparison cohort; the frequency was matched by age and index year of pregnancy. We compared the incidence of end-stage renal disease in the 2 cohorts. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after controlling for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Women with hypertensive disorders during pregnancy had a greater risk of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease, with adjusted HRs of 9.38 (95% CI 7.09-12.4) and 12.4 (95% CI 8.54-18.0), respectively, after controlling for urban status, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, hyperlipidemia and abruption. The HR for end-stage renal disease was 2.72 (95% CI 1.76-4.22) after we also controlled for hypertension and diabetes. Women with preeclampsia or eclampsia had a higher risk of end-stage renal disease (adjusted HR 14.0, 95% CI 9.43-20.7) than women who had gestational hypertension only (adjusted HR 9.03, 95% CI 5.20-15.7). INTERPRETATION: Women with hypertensive disorders during pregnancy were at a high risk of end-stage renal disease. The risk was much greater for women who had preeclampsia or eclampsia than those who had gestational hypertension only.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".