Intrapartum glycaemic control and neonatal hypoglycaemia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine whether, in neonates of mothers with Type 1, Type 2 and gestational diabetes, in-target intrapartum glycaemic control was associated with a lower risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with out-of-target glycaemic control. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for all available publications, regardless of year, based on a published protocol (PROSPERO CRD42016052439). Studies were excluded if they did not report original data or were animal studies. Data were extracted from published reports in duplicate using a prespecified data extraction form. The main outcome of interest was the association between in-target intrapartum glycaemic control and neonatal hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: We screened 2846 records for potential study inclusion; 23 studies, including approximately 2835 women with diabetes, were included in the systematic review. Only two of those studies specifically examined in-target vs out-of-target intrapartum glycaemic control. Of the studies included, six showed a relationship between intrapartum glucose and neonatal hypoglycaemia, five others showed a relationship in at least one of the analyses performed and 12 did not find a significant relationship. Only one study was identified as having a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of high-quality data supporting the association of glucose during labour and delivery with neonatal hypoglycaemia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes. Further studies are required to examine the impact of tight glycaemic targets in labour.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".