Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes among singleton pregnancies in women of very advanced maternal age: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing prevalence of women who tend to delay childbirth until a very advanced age. However, there is sparse data regarding very advanced maternal age (vAMA) and the interplay between vAMA and assisted reproductive technology (ART) on adverse perinatal outcomes. The study aimed to assess the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes of vAMA women (≥43 years), and to investigate the effect of maternal age on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in ART pregnancies. METHODS: Data was obtained from a population-based retrospective cohort of women who delivered in Ontario, Canada, between April 1st, 2012 and March 31st, 2015. The adjusted relative risks (ARR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were estimated by using multivariate log-binomial regression models among age groups. All models were stratified by the utilization of ART (ART and spontaneous conceptions). RESULTS: Women at vAMA had a higher risk of composite outcome comprised of preeclampsia, intrauterine growth retardation, stillbirth, and placental abruption than the younger counterparts (ARR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.23-1.55 compared to mothers aged 20-34; ARR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12-1.42 compared to mothers aged 35-42). Increased risk of the primary outcome in ART compared to spontaneous conception was only observed in women aged 20-34 years (ARR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35). For women conceived with ART, the risk for the primary outcome significantly increased in women at vAMA (ARR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.01-1.65 compared to mothers aged 20-34; ARR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.06-1.74 compared to mothers aged 35-42). CONCLUSION: Women at vAMA have higher risks of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Although the utilization of ART may carry an independent role for adverse perinatal outcomes, it does not further enhance the adverse effect of vAMA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".