Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preterm Birth and Later Systolic Blood Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower birth weight because of fetal growth restriction is associated with higher blood pressure later in life, but the extent to which preterm birth (<37 completed weeks' gestation) or very low birth weight (<1500 g) predicts higher blood pressure is less clear. We performed a systematic review of 27 observational studies that compared the resting or ambulatory systolic blood pressure or diagnosis of hypertension among children, adolescents, and adults born preterm or very low birth weight with those born at term. We performed a meta-analysis with the subset of 10 studies that reported the resting systolic blood pressure difference in millimeters of mercury with 95% CIs or SEs. We assessed methodologic quality with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The 10 studies were composed of 1342 preterm or very low birth weight and 1738 term participants from 8 countries. The mean gestational age at birth of the preterm participants was 30.2 weeks (range: 28.8-34.1 weeks), birth weight was 1280 g (range: 1098-1958 g), and age at systolic blood pressure measurement was 17.8 years (range: 6.3-22.4 years). Former preterm or very low birth weight infants had higher systolic blood pressure than term infants (pooled estimate: 2.5 mm Hg [95% CI: 1.7-3.3 mm Hg]). For the 5 highest quality studies, the systolic blood pressure difference was slightly greater, at 3.8 mm Hg (95% CI: 2.6-5.0 mm Hg). We conclude that infants who are born preterm or very low birth weight have modestly higher systolic blood pressure later in life and may be at increased risk for developing hypertension and its sequelae.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".