Pregnancy outcomes in women with bariatric surgery as compared with morbidly obese women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies among morbidly obese women are associated with serious adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Our study objective is to evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on obstetrical outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study using the healthcare cost and utilization project - Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2011 comparing outcome of births among women who had undergone bariatric surgery with births among women with morbid obesity. Logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted effect of bariatric surgery on maternal and newborn outcomes. RESULTS: There were 8 475 831 births during the study period (221 580 (2.6%) in morbidly obese women and 9587 (0.1%) in women with bariatric surgery). Women with bariatric surgery were more likely to be Caucasian and ≥35 years old as compared with morbidly obese women. As compared with women with morbid obesity, women with bariatric surgery had lower rates of hypertensive disorders, premature rupture of membrane, chorioamnionitis, cesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum infection. Induction of labor, postpartum blood transfusions, venous thromboembolisms, and intrauterine fetal growth restriction were more common in the bariatric surgery group. There were no differences observed in preterm births, fetal deaths, or reported congenital anomalies. CONCLUSION: In general, women who undergo bariatric surgery have improved pregnancy outcomes as compared with morbidly obese women. However, the bariatric surgery group was more likely to have venous thromboembolisms, to require a blood transfusion, to have their labor induced and to experience fetal growth restriction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".