MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158347627

An observational study comparing 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance with fasting plasma glucose in pregnant women: both poorly predictive of birth weight.

2003· article· en· W2158347627 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Ouzilleau, Marie-Andrée Roy, Louiselle LeBlanc, André C. Carpentier, Pierre Maheux

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercentileConfidence intervalBirth weightGestationGestational ageGlucose tolerance testInternal medicinePregnancyObstetricsInsulinEndocrinologyInsulin resistanceMathematicsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The definition and treatment of glucose intolerance during pregnancy are matters of intense controversy. Our goal was to examine the value of the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in terms of its ability to predict birth weight percentile in a group of women with singleton pregnancies who received minimal treatment for their glucose intolerance. METHODS: We reviewed the results of OGTTs performed between 24 and 28 weeks' gestation in a group of 300 consecutive high-risk women (mean age 29.5 years [95% confidence interval, CI, 28.9-30.1]; parity 1.5 [95% CI 1.4-1.7]) whose plasma glucose level 1 hour after a randomly administered 50-g glucose load was 8.0 mmol/L or above. These data were compared with results for a randomly selected control group of 300 women whose plasma glucose level 1 hour after a 50-g glucose load was less than 8.0 mmol/L (mean age 28.0 years [95% CI 27.4-28.6]; parity 1.5 [95% CI 1.3-1.6]). RESULTS: For 76 (25.3%) of the 300 high-risk women, the plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g glucose load (confirmatory OGTT) was 7.8 mmol/L or more, but only 6 of these were treated with insulin, which emphasizes the low level of intervention in this group. Thirty (10.0%) of the neonates in this group were large for gestational age (LGA; adjusted weight at or above the 90th percentile). This proportion did not significantly differ from the proportion for the control group (25 or 8.3%). After exclusion of the 6 insulin-treated women, simple correlations between birth weight percentile and fasting or 2-hour plasma glucose levels were very weak (r = 0.23 and 0.16 respectively; p < 0.01). The correlation between birth weight percentile and fasting or 2-hour plasma glucose persisted in a multiple regression analysis that included the following maternal variables: age, prepregnancy weight, weight gain during pregnancy, parity and smoking. In the multivariate models, the standardized coefficients for fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose levels were low (r = 0.19 [p < 0.001] and r = 0.13 [p = 0.02] respectively). These multivariate models could not explain more than 22% of the total variability in birth weight percentile. INTERPRETATION: In this population of pregnant, untreated diabetic women, plasma glucose levels (either fasting or after various glucose loads) were independently but poorly correlated with birth weight; no more than 3% to 5% of birth weight variability could be explained by changes in glucose tolerance. Fasting plasma glucose was consistently but marginally better than the plasma glucose level 2 hours after 75-g glucose load for predicting LGA neonates. We conclude that neonatal macrosomia is influenced by variables that are largely independent of plasma glucose concentrations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207