Effect of Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy on Clinical Outcomes in Peripartum Cardiomyopathy [39I]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The influence of concurrent hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) on clinical outcomes of patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) remains incompletely characterized, with authors describing harmful and beneficial relationships with regards to maternal mortality or requirement for cardiac transplantation. METHODS: Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Scopus were searched for combinations of the following terminology: hypertension, preeclampsia, cardiomyopathy, peripartum, postpartum or puerperium. Eligibility criteria included all articles addressing mortality rates of PPCM with and without HDP using a combination of the European Society of Cardiology 2010 and the National Heart Lung Blood Institute 2000 diagnostic criteria. Two independent reviewers analyzed abstracts and article text to determine eligibility and risk of bias. Risk of bias was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and a Peto fixed effects model was used to combine odds ratios in a meta-analytic fashion due to the relatively rare frequency of these events. RESULTS: 1838 articles were identified using the search strategy; 148 full text articles were reviewed for eligibility, with 10 observational studies meeting criteria. There was substantial agreement between the two raters for selection (K: 0.799) and for risk of bias (K: 0.851). An overall protective effect was identified [0.565 (95% CI 0.327, 0.974)], with a low degree of heterogeneity (I2 17.66%). No significant differences were found between subgroups-chronic hypertension, access to social medicine, high-income countries and post-diagnosis duration of care greater than 12 months. CONCLUSION: Although the strength of association is weak, concurrent HDP appears to be protective against mortality and need for cardiac transplantation in PPCM.
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 | 0.020 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".