Maternal cigarette smoking and the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension and eclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have found that maternal smoking decreases the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), the difference of this effect between primiparous and multiparous women has not been well studied and the results of the exposure-response relationships between maternal smoking and PIH are inconsistent. No previous study has specifically examined the relationship between maternal smoking and eclampsia. METHODS: We analysed data from a population-based retrospective cohort study of 3 153 944 singleton pregnancies in the US. The data were derived from the national linked birth/infant mortality database for 1998. Multiple logistic regressions were used to describe the relationship between cigarette smoking and PIH and eclampsia. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) [95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)] for PIH were 0.80 (0.77-0.83) for primiparous women and 0.81 (0.78-0.83) for multiparous women among smokers compared with non-smokers. The corresponding adjusted ORs (95% CIs) for eclampsia were 0.74 (0.66-0.82) and 0.75 (0.68-0.83), respectively. For PIH, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for smokers vs non-smokers were 0.82 (0.79-0.86), 0.81 (0.78-0.83), 0.80 (0.77-0.83), and 0.88 (0.79-0.98), respectively, for 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, and >20 cigarettes per day (test for trend: P = 0.86). The corresponding figures for eclampsia were 0.85 (0.75-0.95), 0.74 (0.66-0.82), 0.68 (0.58-0.78), and 0.73 (0.49-1.04), respectively (test for trend: P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Maternal cigarette smoking decreases the risk of PIH and eclampsia, with a significant inverse exposure-response relationship apparent for eclampsia.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".