MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2790892218 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.105

A105 CANADIAN WOMEN WITH IBD ARE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE BIRTH TO LOW BIRTH WEIGHT INFANTS

2018· article· en· W2790892218 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura E. Targownik, Eric I. Benchimol, Cynthia H. Seow, Geoffrey C. Nguyen, Juan Nicolás Peña-Sánchez, Jennifer Jones, Amy Metcalfe, Casandra Dolovich, C N Bernstein, Harminder Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLow birth weightGestational ageBirth weightUlcerative colitisInflammatory bowel diseasePopulationPediatricsObstetricsSmall for gestational agePregnancyPremature birthDiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a chronic inflammatory disease, often develops in adolescence and young adulthood, thus affecting many women in their childbearing years. Data are conflicting on the effect of IBD on gestational outcomes. Population-based data evaluating perinatal outcomes among Canadian women with IBD in the modern era are lacking. We sought to determine whether there is an increased likelihood of prematurity and/or low birth weight among infants born to Canadian women with IBD in a population based provincial dataset We used the University of Manitoba IBD Epidemiologic Database to identify all women in Manitoba between the ages of 15 to 45 with either Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) between 1984–2014. Women with IBD were matched to non-IBD controls in a 1:10 ratio on age and neighbourhood of residence at the time of IBD diagnosis. Live birth events were identified in the maternal record and linked to the neonatal record to obtain the estimated gestational age and birth weight. Prematurity was defined as gestational age less than 37 weeks. Infants weighing less than 2500g at birth were considered to have low birth weight (LBW), and those weighing between 2500-3000g were classified as low-normal birth weight (LNBW). The proportion of all LBW and premature babies among all babies born was calculated for IBD (stratified for CD and UC) and controls. There were 3172 women with IBD (1,827 CD, 1,345 UC) matched to 27,184 non-IBD controls (15,802 matched to CD cases, 11,382 matched to UC cases), 1495 infants (878 CD, 617 UC) were born to women with IBD, compared with 14,006 infants born to controls (8,362 CD controls, 5,644 UC controls). 3.5% of infants born to women with CD were premature, compared with 1.9% of controls (p=0.0043); There was no significant difference in the likelihood of prematurity among babies born to women with UC compared with their controls (2.9% vs. 2.3%, p>0.2). The probability of having a LBW infant was higher among both women with CD and UC compared with controls (CD: 7.8% vs 3.4%, p=0.0004; UC: 7.0% vs 3.1%, p=0.0033). There was also a higher prevalence of LNBW babies among CD (17.5% vs 10.9%, p=0.0008) and UC (18.2% vs 12.5%, p=0.009). Neither maternal age at birth nor era of birth were associated with prematurity, LBW, or LNBW Canadian women with IBD are at increased risk of having LBW and LNBW infants, and women with CD specifically have a higher chance of giving birth prematurely. Further work is required to determine the disease and treatment related factors which may predispose to the development of these adverse birth outcomes. American College of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Gastrointestinal Epidemiologic Consortium

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicPregnancy and Medication Impact→French-language works237,207→