Pregnancy outcomes among women with peptic ulcer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Little is known about the impact of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) on pregnancy. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of PUD on pregnancy and newborn outcomes. Methods A retrospective cohort study was carried out using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)-National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from the United States. The cohort consisted of all births that took place from 1999 to 2015. PUD was classified on the basis of the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the adjusted effect of PUD on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results Of the 13,792,544 births in this cohort, 1005 were to women with PUD (7/100,000 births). Between 1999 and 2015, prevalence of PUD in pregnancy increased from 4/100,000 to 11/100,000, respectively. Women with PUD were more commonly older and more likely to have comorbid illnesses. Women with PUD were at greater risk of preeclampsia [odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67-2.66], preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM; OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.30-3.59), cesarean delivery (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.40-1.82), venous thromboembolism (OR 3.77, 95% CI 2.08-6.85) and maternal death (OR 24.50, 95% CI 10.12-59.32). Births to women with PUD were at increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.11-2.14), preterm birth (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.54-2.21), intrauterine fetal death (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.35-3.52) and congenital anomalies (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.59-4.56). Conclusion The prevalence of PUD in pregnancy has risen over the last several years. PUD in pregnancy should be considered a high-risk condition associated with important adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".