MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009556305 · doi:10.1161/circ.141.suppl_1.33

Abstract 33: Associations of Gestational Cardiovascular Health With Pregnancy Outcomes: The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study

2020· article· en· W3009556305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda M. Perak, Nicola Lancki, Alan Kuang, Darwin R. Labarthe, Svati H. Shah, Lynn P. Lowe, Denise Scholtens, Donald M. Lloyd‐Jones, William L. Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsPregnancyPreeclampsiaOdds ratioGestationGestational ageAnthropometryPopulationSmall for gestational ageGestational hypertensionPercentilePediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Combinations of risk factor levels typically contribute more to population burdens of disease than single adverse risk factors. CVH (as defined by the AHA) characterizes a range of health levels, but its significance in pregnancy for obstetric and neonatal outcomes is unknown. Methods: Data from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study were analyzed, including 1,754 mother-child dyads from 9 field centers in 6 countries: US (26%), Barbados (24%), UK (20%), China (15%), Thailand (8%), and Canada (7%). Maternal CVH was scored (0-10 points, with 10 most favorable) at a mean of 28 (range 23-34) weeks’ gestation using 5 metrics ( Table ). Cord blood was collected at delivery, neonatal anthropometrics were measured within 72 hours, and medical records were abstracted for obstetric outcomes. Logistic regression was utilized to test associations of gestational CVH with obstetric and neonatal outcomes, adjusted for center and maternal and infant characteristics ( Table footnote). Results: The mean gestational CVH score was 8.2 (SD 1.5) out of 10; 18% of mothers had all ideal, 37% had 1+ intermediate, 34% had 1 poor, and 9% had 2+ poor metrics. In fully adjusted models ( Table ), odds ratios per 1 point higher (better) CVH score were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56-0.76) for preeclampsia, 0.89 (0.78-1.00) for unplanned primary cesarean section (among primiparous mothers), 0.84 (0.77-0.93) for large for gestational age infant, 0.87 (0.79-0.97) for infant sum of skinfolds >90 th percentile, and 0.77 (0.69-0.86) for infant insulin sensitivity index (20/[C-peptide*glucose]) <10 th percentile. CVH categories were also associated with outcomes; for example, compared with mothers with all metrics ideal, odds ratios for preeclampsia were 2.00 (0.71-7.14) for mothers with 1+ intermediate, 4.34 (1.63-15.09) for mothers with 1 poor, and 9.40 (3.22-34.52) for mothers with 2+ poor metrics. Conclusion: More favorable levels of gestational CVH were associated with healthier obstetric and neonatal outcomes in this multinational cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Issues in PregnancyFrench-language works237,207