MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Could an infectious trigger explain the differential maternal response to the shared placental pathology of preeclampsia and normotensive intrauterine growth restriction?

2002· article· en· W2102595278 on OpenAlexaff
Peter von Dadelszen, Laura A. Magee

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreeclampsiaMedicineIntrauterine growth restrictionPregnancyDiseasePlacentaDifferential diagnosisEclampsiaObstetricsFetusImmunologyBioinformaticsPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preeclampsia/eclampsia remains an important cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Its origins lie in a mismatch between fetoplacental demands and the ability of the uteroplacental arteries to supply those demands, a situation that also arises in normotensive intrauterine growth restriction (the fetal syndrome of preeclampsia in isolation). Why is there this differential response to the same underlying pathology? This review summarises the evidence surrounding a potential trigger for the differential response, namely infection. This builds on the inflammatory model of preeclampsia for which there is increasing support. The evidence for an infectious trigger is principally indirect, linking the similarities between acute atherosis in preeclampsia and atherosclerosis, the increased likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease later in life following a preeclampsia pregnancy, and the association between chronic infection and atherogenesis. Also reviewed is the human and animal model evidence for an infectious trigger for preeclampsia. Perhaps preeclampsia truly is the 'toxemia' of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207