MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association of Cesarean Delivery With Risk of Neurodevelopmental and Psychiatric Disorders in the Offspring

2019· review· en· W2970940810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tianyang Zhang, Anna Sidorchuk, Laura Sevilla‐Cermeño, Alba Vilaplana-Pérez, Zheng Chang, Henrik Larsson, David Mataix‐Cols, Lorena Fernández de la Cruz

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome TrustChina Scholarship CouncilStockholms Läns LandstingFundación Alicia KoplowitzEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsOffspringMedicineObservational studyMeta-analysisOdds ratioPsycINFOPsychiatryMEDLINEPediatricsPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Birth by cesarean delivery is increasing globally, particularly cesarean deliveries without medical indication. Children born via cesarean delivery may have an increased risk of negative health outcomes, but the evidence for psychiatric disorders is incomplete. Objective: To evaluate the association between cesarean delivery and risk of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders in the offspring. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to December 19, 2018. Search terms included all main mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition). Study Selection: Two researchers independently selected observational studies that examined the association between cesarean delivery and neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders in the offspring. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two researchers independently extracted data according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for each outcome. Sensitivity and influence analyses tested the robustness of the results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ORs for the offspring with any neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorder who were born via cesarean delivery compared with those were born via vaginal delivery. Results: A total of 6953 articles were identified, of which 61 studies comprising 67 independent samples were included, totaling 20 607 935 deliveries. Compared with offspring born by vaginal delivery, offspring born via cesarean delivery had increased odds of autism spectrum disorders (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.25-1.41; I2 = 69.5%) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07-1.26; I2 = 79.2%). Estimates were less precise for intellectual disabilities (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.90-3.70; I2 = 88.2%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.87-2.56; I2 = 67.3%), tic disorders (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.98-1.76; I2 = 75.6%), and eating disorders (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.96-1.47; I2 = 92.7%). No significant associations were found with depression/affective psychoses or nonaffective psychoses. Estimates were comparable for emergency and elective cesarean delivery. Study quality was high for 82% of the cohort studies and 50% of the case-control studies. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that cesarean delivery births are associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, irrespective of cesarean delivery modality, compared with vaginal delivery. Future studies on the mechanisms behind these associations appear to be warranted.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations216
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207