Excessive gestational weight gain in accordance with the IOM criteria and the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is a potential risk factor for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). METHODS: We systematically reviewed three electronic databases for relevant articles published in English: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to supply a pooled estimation of the OR comparing the risk of HDP among healthy pregnant women with and without excessive GWG. RESULTS: The pooled estimation for the association between excessive GWG and the risk of HDPs yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 1.79 (95% CI: 1.61-1.99). A subgroup analysis showed that women who had excessive GWG were more likely to have an HDP (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.53-2.17), preeclampsia (OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.36-2.72), or gestational hypertension (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.43-1.95). The pooled estimation for the association between excessive GWG and the risk of HDPs among pregestational normal weight women yielded an OR of 1.57 (95% CI 1.26-1.96). A subgroup analysis showed that women who had excessive GWG were more likely to have HDP (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.09-1.92) or gestational hypertension (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.22-1.86). The summary ORs of pre-gestational underweight women and pre-gestational overweight and obese women were 2.17 (95% CI 1.56-3.02) and 1.32 (95% CI 1.08-1.63), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that excessive GWG in accordance with the IOM recommendations influences the rate of HDP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".