Maternal age and risk of stillbirth: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of women who delay childbirth to their late 30s and beyond has increased significantly over the past several decades. Studies regarding the relation between older maternal age and the risk of stillbirth have yielded inconsistent conclusions. In this systematic review we explored whether older maternal age is associated with an increased risk of stillbirth. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for all relevant articles (original studies and systematic reviews) published up to Dec. 31, 2006. We included all cohort and case-control studies that measured the association between maternal age and risk of stillbirth. Two reviewers independently abstracted data from all included studies using a standardized data abstraction form. Methodologic and statistical heterogeneities were reviewed and tested. RESULTS: We identified 913 unique citations, of which 31 retrospective cohort and 6 case-control studies met our inclusion criteria. In 24 (77%) of the 31 cohort studies and all 6 of the case-control studies, we found that greater maternal age was significantly associated with an increased risk of stillbirth; relative risks varied from 1.20 to 4.53 for older versus younger women. In the 14 studies that presented adjusted relative risk, we found no extensive change in the direction or magnitude of the relative risk after adjustment. We did not calculate a pooled relative risk because of the extreme methodologic heterogeneity among the individual studies. INTERPRETATION: Women with advanced maternal age have an increased risk of stillbirth. However, the magnitude and mechanisms of the increased risk are not clear, and prospective studies are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".