Pregnancy outcomes of Chinese women with gestational diabetes mellitus defined by the IADPSG's but not by the 1999 WHO's criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy outcomes of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) newly defined by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG)'s criteria vs GDM cases missed by a shift from the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO)'s criteria to the IADPSG's. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, we recruited 17 808 women who registered within 12 weeks of gestation in Tianjin, China. All women underwent a 50-g 1-h glucose challenge test (GCT) at 24-28 weeks of gestation and further underwent a 75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) if the GCT result was ≥7·8 mmol/l. Women were divided into four groups, i.e., GDM defined by both criteria, GDM defined by the IADPSG's only, GDM defined by the 1999 WHO's only and non-GDM by either of them. Large for gestational age (LGA), macrosomia, pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) and preterm birth were compared among the four groups. Logistic regression was used to control for confounders. RESULTS: The use of IADPSG's and the 1999 WHO's criteria detected that 7·7% (n = 1378) and 6·8% (n = 1206) of women had GDM, respectively, with 429 GDM newly identified and 257 women missed by a shift from the 1999 WHO's to the IADPSG's. The IADPSG's newly defined GDM had significantly increased risks of LGA (adjusted OR: 2·23, 95%CI: 1·36-3·64) and macrosomia (2·65, 95%CI: 1·50-4·66) than the 1999 WHO's only defined GDM cases. CONCLUSIONS: A shift of the 1999 WHO's criteria to the IADPSG's diagnosed more GDM cases who had worse pregnancy outcomes than those cases missed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".