MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800433822 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15227

Are singleton pregnancies after assisted reproduction technology (<scp>ART</scp>) associated with a higher risk of placental anomalies compared with non‐<scp>ART</scp> singleton pregnancies? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2018· review· en· W2800433822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingletonMedicineObstetricsPlacentaOdds ratioPlacental abruptionAssisted reproductive technologyPregnancyFetusGynecologyInfertilityBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Placental anomalies (placenta praevia, placental abruption, morbidly adherent placenta and cord insertion anomalies) are associated with maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested these might be more prevalent in pregnancies after assisted reproduction technology (ART). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ART singleton pregnancies are associated with an increased risk of placental anomalies compared with non-ART singleton pregnancies. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus (January 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies reporting placental anomalies in ART and non-ART singleton pregnancies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We report pooled odds ratios (OR) for the comparisons: (1) ART versus SC (spontaneously conceived), (2) ART versus non-ART (unspecified), (3) FET-ART (frozen-embryo transfer) versus SC, (4) ART versus non-ART (subfertile patients). Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle -Ottawa scale. MAIN RESULTS: 33 low/moderate quality studies evaluated 124 215 ART and 6 054 729 non-ART singleton pregnancies. Risk of placenta praevia, placental abruption and morbidly adherent placenta was higher in ART than SC pregnancies: odds ratio (OR) (OR 3.76, 95% CI 3.09-4.59); (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.70-2.06) and (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.79-2.87) respectively. Risk of placenta praevia and placental abruption was higher in ART than in non-ART (subfertile patients): (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.12-2.98) and (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.33-1.95) respectively. Results were similar when comparing ART with unspecified non-ART pregnancies. Risk of placenta praevia was higher, but not significantly so, in FET-ART than in SC pregnancies (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.63-9.30). CONCLUSIONS: Singleton ART pregnancies are associated with an increased risk of placental anomalies compared with non-ART singleton pregnancies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A review of over 6 million singleton pregnancies finds increased risk of placental anomalies after ART.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · 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