Reproductive Factors and Risk of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The female predominance in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) suggests the possible involvement of reproductive factors in its etiology. We evaluated the relationship between parity and pregnancy losses and subsequent risk of SLE in a population-based cohort study. METHODS: We followed 4.4 million Danes aged 15-69 years for first inpatient hospitalizations for SLE between 1977 and 2004. As measures of relative risk, we used Poisson regression-derived hospitalization rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for cohort members with different reproductive histories. RESULTS: Overall, 1614 women and 274 men were hospitalized with SLE during 88.9 million person-years of followup. Number of children was unrelated to SLE risk in men, but women with at least one liveborn child were at lower risk than nulliparous women (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.86), and women with 2 or more children were at lower risk than 1-child mothers. Recurrent idiopathic pregnancy losses, including spontaneous abortions, missed abortions, and stillbirths, were associated with markedly increased SLE risk (RR 3.50; 95% CI 2.38-4.96, for 2+ vs none; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Nulliparous women, 1-child mothers, and women who experience spontaneous abortions, missed abortions, or stillbirths are at increased SLE risk. Theoretically, immunological processes involved in subfertility or idiopathic pregnancy losses might act as initiating or contributing factors in some cases of SLE. However, considering the well established excess of pregnancy complications in women with established SLE, the observed associations more likely reflect the effect of subclinical immunological processes in women destined to develop SLE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".