MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802505555 · doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2018.02.003

First trimesters Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A levels value to Predict Gestational diabetes Mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

2018· review· en· W2802505555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahra Hadizadeh Talasaz, Ramin Sadeghi, Fariba Askari, Salmeh Dadgar, Atiyeh Vatanchi

Bibliographic record

VenueTaiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisGestational diabetesMedicinePregnancyChecklistObstetricsPregnancy-associated plasma protein AConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusFirst trimesterInternal medicineGestationEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting pregnant women at risk of diabetes in first months can help them by early intervention for delaying or preventing onset of GDM. In this study, we aimed to assess the Predictive value of first trimester Pregnancy related plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) levels for detecting Gestational diabetes Mellitus (GDM). This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through probing in databases. PubMed, Scopus, Medline and Google scholar citations were searched to find the published papers from 1974 to 2017. Studies were considered eligible if they were cohorts, case-control studies, reported GDM result, not other types, conducted on singleton pregnancy, measured Serum pregnancy associated plasma protein A in the first trimester and evaluated the relation of first trimester pregnancy associated plasma protein-A and GDM. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality with Newcastle-Ottawa and extracted data in the Pre-defined checklist. Analysis of the data was carried out by "Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2 (CAM)" and Metadisc software. 17 articles have our inclusion criteria and were considered in our systematic review, 5 studies included in Meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these articles showed that the predictive value of PAPP-A for GDM has 55% sensitivity (53-58), 90% (89-90) specificity, LR + 2.48 (0.83-7.36) and LR - 0.70 (0.45-1.09) with 95% confidence intervals. In our study PAPP-A has low predictive accuracy overall, but it may be useful when combined with other tests, and this is an active part for future research. One limitation of our study is significant heterogeneity because of different adjusted variables and varied diagnostic criteria.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.043
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207