New-Onset Hypertension in Late Pregnancy and Fetal Growth: Different Associations Between Singletons and Twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of new-onset hypertension (NOH) in late pregnancy on fetal growth in singletons and twins. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of NOH on fetal growth in 17, 720, 900 singletons and 463, 104 twins born in the United States between 1995 and 2000. RESULTS: NOH was associated with lower mean birth weight in both preterm and term singletons. Increased risk of low birth weight and decreased risk of high birth weight was associated with NOH in preterm and term singletons. NOH was associated with increased risk for small-for-gestational-age (SGA) births and decreased risk for large-for-gestational-age (LGA) births in preterm singletons, whereas it was associated with increased risk of both SGA and LGA births in term singletons. NOH was associated with higher mean birth weight in early preterm twins, and lower mean birth weight in term twins. Decreased risk for low birth weight was found in the NOH group among early preterm twins, and increased risk for low birth weight in term twins. NOH was associated with increased risk of SGA births and decreased risk for large-for-gestational-age (LGA) births in early preterm twins, while increased risk of SGA births in term twins. CONCLUSION: NOH is associated with slower fetal growth in singletons delivered at different gestational ages, but the effect varies in twins depending on gestational age at delivery with faster growth in early preterm twins.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".