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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".