Incidence and outcomes of women with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in pregnancy: a population-based study on 7.9 million births
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to estimate the incidence and maternal and fetal outcomes of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in pregnancy. METHODS: We carried out a population-based cohort study on all births identified in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2011. We calculated disease incidence and used logistic regression analysis to estimate the adjusted effect of HL on maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: There were 638 cases of HL in pregnancy among 7,916,388 births, for an overall incidence of 8.06 per 100,000 births, with no perceivable trend over the 8-year study period. Relative to controls, HL in pregnancy was more common among Caucasians and women aged 25-34 years. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, women with HL in pregnancy were more likely to have preterm births, odds ratio (OR) 1.93 (1.53, 2.42) require postpartum blood transfusion, OR 1.38 (1.05, 1.82), and have venous thromboembolism (VTE), OR 7.93 (2.97, 21.22). CONCLUSION: The incidence of HL in pregnancy appears to be higher than previously reported with no temporal trend over an 8-year period. Although there is a greater risk of preterm birth and maternal postpartum blood transfusion and VTE, overall maternal and neonatal major morbidity and mortality does not appear to be increased.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".