MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891166903 · doi:10.1093/emph/eoy029

Pre-eclampsia and maternal–fetal conflict

2018· article· en· W2891166903 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Enriquez, Luseadra McKerracher, Michael G. Elliot

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution Medicine and Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclampsiaObstetricsMedicinePregnancyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-eclampsia, a pregnancy disorder defined clinically by maternal hypertension and proteinuria, affects 5–10% of pregnancies and is a major cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality [1]. In healthy pregnancy, placental tissue invades maternal uterine arteries causing reduced arterial elasticity and promoting blood supply to the placenta. In early-onset pre-eclampsia (<34 weeks) this invasion is inadequate, resulting in stressed placentas deprived of blood flow and often yielding growth-restricted fetuses. In late-onset pre-eclampsia (≥34 weeks) the condition is characterized more by defects in maternal cardiovascular health than by inadequate placental invasion. In both cases, the results are a pro-inflammatory maternal immune environment, hypertension and blood vessel damage in kidney, liver and brain [2]. The multiple risk factors of pre-eclampsia include poor maternal cardiovascular health (including hypertension and obesity), presence of risk alleles and lack of extended sexual exposure of the mother to the father prior to conception [3]. Pre-eclampsia is common only in humans (which have the most invasive form of mammalian placenta). It is reported rarely in other great apes and absent in non-apes. Parent-offspring conflict [4] may underlie the evolutionary maintenance of pre-eclampsia despite its burden of mortality. Increased placental invasion and intimacy of maternal–fetal contact is associated with increased prenatal growth rates (but not absolute size) of brain and body [5, 6]. Since mothers and offspring have different optimal gestation lengths and growth rates, there will be conflict over these phenotypes. One additional benefit to the fetus of invasive placentation is that the metabolic costs of detoxifying harmful byproducts of oxygen metabolism (i.e. oxidative stress) can be offloaded onto the mother by direct secretion of pro-inflammatory substances into her blood [7]. Consequently, alleles promoting or suppressing invasion (of benefit to fetus and mother, respectively) persist in the population and may cause disease in certain genetic combinations or maternal health states. Conflict over placental invasion may be exacerbated by high human prenatal brain growth rates which, along with the unusually long human gestation length, may explain pre-eclampsia’s high frequency in humans but rarity in species with less-demanding fetal brain growth trajectories. Humans have unusually low fecundability, which promotes extended preconception interaction between couples, potentially reducing pre-eclampsia risk through development of maternal tolerance of paternal antigens [3]. Genetic conflict should be expected in all pregnancies and may lead to medical complications. It may be of psychological benefit for expectant parents to anticipate conflict and its potential consequences from the beginning of pregnancy, instead of viewing pregnancy as maternal–fetal harmony. Many mammals exhibit drastically reduced placental invasion in normal pregnancy. Understanding how these species combine low placental invasion with fetal and maternal wellbeing, and how evolutionary transitions between placental types have occurred [7], may contribute to our knowledge of human placental disorders.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEvolution Medicine and Public HealthSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207