MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019800849 · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.04.028

Relationship between vitamin D status in the first trimester of pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus - A nested case–control study

2020· article· en· W3019800849 on OpenAlexaff
Eleonora Salakos, Tioka Rabeony, Marie Courbebaisse, Vassilis Tsatsaris, Jean Guibourdenche, Marie‐Victoire Sénat, Hazar Haidar, Jacques Jani, Dragos Barglazan, Émeline Maisonneuve, Marie‐Clotilde Haguet, Norbert Winer, Damien Masson, Caroline Elie, Jean‐Claude Souberbielle, Alexandra Benachi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
FundersAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisAgence Nationale de la RechercheEli Lilly and CompanyAmgen
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesNested case-control studyPregnancyObstetricsVitamin D and neurologyBody mass indexCohort studyProspective cohort studyGestationvitamin D deficiencyDiabetes mellitusGestational ageCase-control studyGynecologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most frequent medical complications during pregnancy. It has been associated with many adverse pregnancy, fetal and neonatal outcomes, as well as with an increased risk for mothers and children in the long term. There is a growing interest in vitamin D and its potential role in the development of metabolic disorders. However, the medical literature is not consensual. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of GDM according to vitamin D status during the first trimester. METHODS: This study is a nested case-control study performed from a multicenter prospective observational cohort of pregnant women assessed for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (25OHD). Three hundred ninety-three patients were included in the initial cohort. After applying exclusion criteria, a total of 1191 pregnant women were included. Two hundred fifty women with GDM (cases) were matched to 941 women without GDM (controls) for parity, age, body mass index before pregnancy, the season of conception, and phototype. This study was funded by a grant from the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Publique 2010". RESULTS: The GDM risk was significantly greater for patients with 25OHD levels <20 ng/mL (OR = 1∙42, 95% CI 1∙06-1∙91; p = 0∙021). However, there was no significant relationship with other thresholds. The study of 25OHD levels with the more precise cutting of 5 units intervals showed a variable relationship with GDM risk, as the risk was low for very low 25OHD levels, increased for moderated levels, decreased for normal levels, and finally increased for higher levels. CONCLUSION: According to our study, there seems to be no linear relationship between GDM and 25OHD levels in the first trimester of pregnancy since GDM risk does not continuously decrease as 25OHD concentrations increase. Our results most probably highlight the absence of an association between 25OHD levels and GDM risk.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical NutritionSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207