MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620074836 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002307

Maternal age and severe maternal morbidity: A population-based retrospective cohort study

2017· article· en· W2620074836 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarka Lisonkova, Jayson Potts, Giulia M. Muraca, Neda Razaz, Yasser Sabr, Wee‐Shian Chan, Michael S. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWashington State University
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyMedicinePopulationCohort studyPediatricsDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: One of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals of 2000 was to reduce maternal mortality by 75% in 15 y; however, this challenge was not met by many industrialized countries. As average maternal age continues to rise in these countries, associated potentially life-threatening severe maternal morbidity has been understudied. Our primary objective was to examine the associations between maternal age and severe maternal morbidities. The secondary objective was to compare these associations with those for adverse fetal/infant outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study, including all singleton births to women residing in Washington State, US, 1 January 2003-31 December 2013 (n = 828,269). We compared age-specific rates of maternal mortality/severe morbidity (e.g., obstetric shock) and adverse fetal/infant outcomes (e.g., perinatal death). Logistic regression was used to adjust for parity, body mass index, assisted conception, and other potential confounders. We compared crude odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (AORs) and risk differences and their 95% CIs. Severe maternal morbidity was significantly higher among teenage mothers than among those 25-29 y (crude OR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.5-1.6) and increased exponentially with maternal age over 39 y, from OR = 1.2 (95% CI 1.2-1.3) among women aged 35-39 y to OR = 5.4 (95% CI 2.4-12.5) among women aged ≥50 y. The elevated risk of severe morbidity among teen mothers disappeared after adjustment for confounders, except for maternal sepsis (AOR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4). Adjusted rates of severe morbidity remained increased among mothers ≥35 y, namely, the rates of amniotic fluid embolism (AOR = 8.0, 95% CI 2.7-23.7) and obstetric shock (AOR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.3-6.6) among mothers ≥40 y, and renal failure (AOR = 15.9, 95% CI 4.8-52.0), complications of obstetric interventions (AOR = 4.7, 95% CI 2.3-9.5), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (AOR = 4.8, 95% CI 2.0-11.9) among those 45-49 y. The adjusted risk difference in severe maternal morbidity compared to mothers 25-29 y was 0.9% (95% CI 0.7%-1.2%) for mothers 40-44 y, 1.6% (95% CI 0.7%-2.8%) for mothers 45-49 y, and 6.4% for mothers ≥50 y (95% CI 1.7%-18.2%). Similar associations were observed for fetal and infant outcomes; neonatal mortality was elevated in teen mothers (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.7), while mothers over 29 y had higher risk of stillbirth. The rate of severe maternal morbidity among women over 49 y was higher than the rate of mortality/serious morbidity of their offspring. Despite the large sample size, statistical power was insufficient to examine the association between maternal age and maternal death or very rare severe morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal age-specific incidence of severe morbidity varied by outcome. Older women (≥40 y) had significantly elevated rates of some of the most severe, potentially life-threatening morbidities, including renal failure, shock, acute cardiac morbidity, serious complications of obstetric interventions, and ICU admission. These results should improve counselling to women who contemplate delaying childbirth until their forties and provide useful information to their health care providers. This information is also useful for preventive strategies to lower maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity in developed countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations189
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207