Pregnancy outcomes among women with asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the association between maternal asthma and pregnancy, delivery and neonatal outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study using the Health Care Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) database from 2003 to 2011. Among women who delivered during this time period, we compared pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes in asthmatics versus non-asthmatics. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: In a cohort of 7,772,999 pregnant women, 223,236 (2.9%) had asthma. The prevalence of asthma-complicated pregnancies rose over the study period from 1.9% in 2003 to 3.7% in 2011 (p < .001). Pregnant asthmatics had more pre-existing health conditions, such as diabetes, chronic hypertension, obesity, and thyroid disease, and were more likely to smoke. Even after adjustment for these comorbidities, and other covariates, within statistical models, asthma was found to be associated with greater risk of several pregnancy complications: gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, preterm premature rupture of membranes, placental abruption, chorioamnionitis, preterm delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, venous thromboembolism, caesarean section delivery, and maternal mortality. Neonates born to asthmatics had greater risk of being small for gestational age and for having congenital anomalies, and lower risk of intrauterine fetal death. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma is associated with an increase in adverse pregnancy, labor, and neonatal outcomes. Close surveillance of asthmatic patients during the prenatal period is warranted and care in a tertiary hospital is advised.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".