Hepatic fat and abdominal adiposity in early pregnancy together predict impaired glucose homeostasis in mid-pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatic fat and abdominal adiposity individually reflect insulin resistance, but their combined effect on glucose homeostasis in mid-pregnancy is unknown. A cohort of 476 pregnant women prospectively underwent sonographic assessment of hepatic fat and visceral (VAT) and total (TAT) adipose tissue at 11-14 weeks' gestation. Logistic regression was used to assess the relation between the presence of maternal hepatic fat and/or the upper quartile (Q) of either VAT or TAT and the odds of developing the composite outcome of impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or gestational diabetes mellitus at 24-28 weeks' gestation, based on a 75 g OGTT. Upon adjusting for maternal age, ethnicity, family history of DM and body mass index (BMI), the co-presence of hepatic fat and quartile 4 (Q4) of VAT (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 6.5, 95% CI: 2.3-18.5) or hepatic fat and Q4 of TAT (aOR 7.8 95% CI 2.8-21.7) were each associated with the composite outcome, relative to women with neither sonographic feature. First-trimester sonographic evidence of maternal hepatic fat and abdominal adiposity may independently predict the development of impaired glucose homeostasis and GDM in mid-pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".