MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981862438 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.014231

Screening Glucose Challenge Test in Pregnancy Can Identify Women With an Adverse Postpartum Cardiovascular Risk Factor Profile: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction

2019· article· en· W2981862438 on OpenAlexaff
Ravi Retnakaran, Chang Ye, Anthony J. Hanley, Philip W. Connelly, Mathew Sermer, Bernard Zinman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMedicineEndocrinologyAdiponectinGestational diabetesDiabetes mellitusApolipoprotein BContext (archaeology)CholesterolRisk factorPregnancyApolipoprotein A1LipoproteinHigh-density lipoproteinInsulin resistanceGestationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The 1‐hour glucose challenge test ( GCT ) is routinely performed in pregnancy to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus. Remarkably, it has recently emerged that the GCT can also predict a woman's future risk of cardiovascular disease, although the mechanistic basis of this relationship is unclear. In this context we hypothesized that a higher GCT may identify women with an otherwise unrecognized adverse cardiovascular phenotype. Thus, we sought to evaluate the relationship between the antepartum GCT and subsequent postpartum cardiovascular risk factor profile. Methods and Results In this study 503 women completed a screening GCT in late second trimester and then underwent cardiometabolic characterization at 3 months postpartum, whereupon traditional (blood pressure, glucose, lipids) and nontraditional (apolipoprotein B, C‐reactive protein, adiponectin) cardiovascular risk factors were compared across GCT tertiles. At 3 months postpartum, each of the following risk factors progressively worsened from the lowest to middle to highest GCT tertile: fasting glucose ( P =0.0002), 2‐hour glucose ( P <0.0001), total cholesterol:high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( P =0.0004), high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( P =0.004), triglycerides ( P =0.001), apolipoprotein B ( P =0.001), and adiponectin ( P =0.02). On multiple linear regression analyses, the GCT emerged as a significant independent predictor of higher fasting glucose ( P =0.0006), 2‐hour glucose ( P <0.0001), total cholesterol: high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( P =0.0004), triglycerides ( P =0.001), low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( P =0.01), and apolipoprotein B ( P =0.004) and of lower high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( P =0.02) and adiponectin ( P =0.0099). Moreover, these independent associations persisted after excluding women who had gestational diabetes mellitus. Conclusions The antepartum GCT can identify women with an adverse underlying cardiovascular risk factor phenotype.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→