Cardiovascular outcomes of pregnancy in Turner syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Women with Turner syndrome (TS) are frequently counselled against pregnancy due to lack of data and unclear aortic dissection risk. However, with advances in fertility therapy, more women with TS are contemplating pregnancy. This study compared rates of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes among: (1) pregnant and non-pregnant women with TS and (2) pregnant women with TS with/without structural heart disease. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of pregnant and age-matched non-pregnant controls with TS (2005-2017) across 10 CV centres was done. Data were collected at initial evaluation in pregnancy and outcomes were assessed to 6 months postpartum. Adverse CV events were defined as CV death, aortic dissection/rupture and/or aortic intervention. Non-pregnant age-matched controls were followed over the same time period. RESULTS: Sixty-eight pregnancies were included (60 women, mean age 33 years, 48% primigravid, 49% fertility therapy, 80% structurally normal heart, 25% XO karyotype). Based on American Society of Reproductive Medicine criteria, 10 pregnancies occurred in women stratified to high-risk category. There were no CV events in the pregnant women or in the non-pregnant women with TS. Obstetric events complicated 12 (18%) pregnancies with 9 (13%) attributed to hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Fetal events included small for gestational age neonates (18%), preterm delivery (15%) and fetal death (3%). CONCLUSIONS: This study helps to refine the approach to pregnancy in women with TS. Among women with TS without structural heart disease, pregnancy does not impose an increased risk of CV outcomes. Among women with TS with structural heart disease, the risk of pregnancy is not as prohibitive as previously described but does require ongoing evaluation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".