Advanced maternal age and its association with placenta praevia and placental abruption: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the existence and magnitude of the association between advanced maternal age (AMA) and occurrence of placenta praevia (PP) and placental abruption (PA) among nulliparous and multiparous women, by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched articles published between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, in any language, in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS. Women were grouped into two age categories: up to 34 years old and 35 years or older. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was conducted for the PP and PA outcomes, using a meta-regression model to find possible covariates associated with heterogeneity among the studies and Egger's test to assess publication bias. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) system (CRD42016045594). Twenty-three studies met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For both outcomes, an increase in age increased the magnitude of association strength, and PP (OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 2.79-3.57) was more strongly associated with AMA than PA (OR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.35-1.54). For parity, there was no difference between nulliparous and multiparous women considered older for the PP and PA outcomes. Our review provided very low-quality evidence for both outcomes, since it encompasses observational studies with high statistical heterogeneity, diversity of populations, no control of confounding factors in several cases, and publication bias. However, the confidence intervals were small and there is a dose-response gradient, as well as a large magnitude of effect for PP.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".