Obstetric haemorrhage and risk of cardiovascular disease after three decades: a population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between obstetric haemorrhage and cardiovascular disease up to three decades after pregnancy. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING AND POPULATION: All women who delivered between 1989 and 2016 in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: Using hospital admissions data, 1 224 975 women were followed from their first delivery until March 2018. The main exposure measures were antenatal (placenta praevia, placental abruption, peripartum haemorrhage) or postpartum haemorrhage, with or without transfusion. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to assess the association between obstetric haemorrhage and future cardiovascular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cardiovascular hospitalisation. RESULTS: Among 104 291 (8.5%) women with haemorrhage, 4612 (4.4%) required transfusion. Women with haemorrhage had a higher incidence of cardiovascular hospitalisation than women without haemorrhage (15.5 versus 14.1 per 10 000 person-years; 2437 versus 28 432 events). Risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation was higher for obstetric haemorrhage, with or without transfusion, compared with no haemorrhage (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10). Women with haemorrhage and transfusion had a substantially greater risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (aHR 1.47, 95% CI 1.23-1.76). Among transfused women, placental abruption (aHR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06-3.00) and postpartum haemorrhage (aHR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13-1.68) were both associated with risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation. Antenatal haemorrhage with transfusion was associated with 2.46 times the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation at 5 years (95% CI 1.59-3.80) and 2.14 times the risk at 10 years (95% CI 1.47-3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Obstetric haemorrhage requiring transfusion is associated with maternal cardiovascular disease. The benefit of cardiovascular risk prevention in pregnant women with obstetric haemorrhage requires further investigation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Risk of future cardiovascular disease is increased for women with obstetric haemorrhage who require transfusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".