MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2823236193 · doi:10.1093/aje/kwy137

Chahal et al. Respond to “Physical Exertion and Placental Abruption”

2018· letter· en· W2823236193 on OpenAlexaff
Harpreet S. Chahal, Bizu Gelaye, Michelle A. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExertionPlacental abruptionMedicineObstetricsPregnancyPsychologyPhysical therapyBiologyFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate the thoughtful comments by Baylin and Guyer (1) on our article, in which we evaluated the acute risk of placental abruption following physical exertion (2). Their commentary raises important issues on the etiology of placental abruption, the clinical implications of our work, and the most appropriate public health message regarding physical activity during pregnancy. Baylin and Guyer suggest a few interesting precipitants of myocardial infarction that may also increase the acute risk of placental abruption, such as cocaine use, sexual activity, and anger. We agree that these are important questions for future studies to investigate. Cocaine use over the course of pregnancy increases the baseline risk of placental abruption as well as other adverse obstetrical outcomes (3). Given the fast-acting vasoconstrictive effects of cocaine, it is possible that its use would also increase the immediate risk of placental abruption. The association of sexual activity and a transiently increased risk of cardiovascular events has been well-documented using the case-crossover approach (4), and we think this exposure would be particularly interesting for obstetrical outcomes; not only does sexual activity include physical exertion, but vaginal-penile intercourse may cause oxytocin release and uterine contractions from direct stimulation of the lower uterine segment, orgasm, and the high prostaglandin content found in semen (5). While we present an increase in the acute risk of placental abruption following physical stress, and others have found a higher risk following exposure to chemical stress (6, 7), the immediate effect following psychological stressors is, to our knowledge, unstudied. Anger is another important exposure because its physiologic effects are similar to those of heavy physical exertion (8). A case-report suggests that panic may be a potential stressor as well (9). Baylin and Guyer comment that the risk associated with episodes of physical exertion among women who were less sedentary in our study was not null but hypothesize that a null association might be found among women who are more physically active, similar to prior studies on myocardial infarction. We think this is possible as well, given that the circulating level of catecholamines correlate better with the relative intensity of exertion than with the absolute intensity and that catecholamine release is reduced after exercise training (10). Finally, we agree that the public health implications of these findings need to be addressed thoughtfully. In this case-only design, we studied 663 women who had had placental abruption and were therefore, by definition, delivering high-risk pregnancies. The majority of pregnancies do not experience this rare complication, and women with uncomplicated pregnancies ought to be encouraged to engage in safe levels of physical activity before, during, and after pregnancy. As we stated in our study, although we did not compare women who had placental abruption with those who did not, we also hypothesized that women who engaged in more physical activity would have a lower total risk of placental abruption despite the transient increase in risk associated with each episode of exertion, similar to the relationship between physical exertion and ischemic cardiovascular events. Author affiliations: Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts (Harpreet S. Chahal, Bizu Gelaye, Michelle A. Williams); Mississauga Academy of Medicine, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Canada (Harpreet S. Chahal). Conflict of interest: none declared.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0240.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207