MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2421356072

Elevated maternal glucose concentrations and placental infection in twin pregnancies.

2005· article· en· W2421356072 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Luke, Morton B. Brown, Ruta Misiunas, Jill Mauldin, Roger Newman, Clark Nugent, Víctor Hugo González-Quintero, Frank R. Witter, Gary D.V. Hankins, Mary E. D’Alton, George A. Macones

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChorioamnionitisObstetricsGestationPregnancyQuartileConfoundingPlacentaInternal medicineFetusConfidence interval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between maternal screening glucose concentration and placental infection in nondiabetic twin pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: One thousand sixty-one nondiabetic twin pregnancies at > or =28 weeks' gestation were divided into 3 groups based on the screening 50-g fasting glucose concentration at 24-28 weeks: lowest quartile (< 96 mg/dL), middle 2 quartiles (96-128 mg/dL) and upper quartile (> 128 mg/dL). Outcomes were modeled using general linear and multinomial logistic regression, controlling for confounding factors. RESULTS: The middle and highest glucose groups were associated with increased risks for clinical chorioamnionitis (adjusted OR [AOR] 3.18, 95% CI 1.34, 7.54; AOR 6.80, CI 1.89, 24.53, respectively). Birth at <32 weeks and histologic diagnosis of placental infection (chorioamnionitis, funisitis, necrosis, vasculitis or villitis) were significantly associated only with the highest glucose group (AOR 1.79, CI 1.02, 3.13; AOR 6.95, CI 1.10, 8.68, respectively). CONCLUSION: Elevated screening glucose in nondiabetic twin pregnancies may be a marker of placental inflammation and infection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→