Lipid Profile in Pregnant Women With and Without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), the most common metabolic disorder of pregnancy, is associated with alterations in circulating lipids. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare lipid profiles in women with and without GDM. Methods: This study was performed on 84 pregnant women at 26-30 weeks of gestation (42 pregnant women with GDM as cases and 42 healthy pregnant women as controls). After obtaining informed consent and gathering demographic data, subjects underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test and lipid profile was also measured in all subjects. Results: We found that high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels were significantly higher in the GDM group (53.10±1.72 vs 46.64±1.70 mg/dL, P=0.008). Total cholesterol (228.96±52.03 vs 211.59±41.83 mg/ dL) and triglyceride (TG) levels (225.58±89.84 vs 208.38±80.66 mg/dL) were also higher in the GDM group; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P=0.770 and P=0.327, respectively). On the contrary, low-density lipoprotein was found to be non-significantly higher in the healthy group (144.54±26.01 vs 122.41±4.82 mg/dL, P=0.709). Besides, there was a significant association between HDL levels and GDM (OR: 1.049; 95% CI: 1.009-1.090, P=0.015). This association remained significant when adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), and gestational age (OR: 1.010; 95% CI: 1.002-1.017, P=0.009). No significant association was found between GDM and TG, cholesterol, and LDL levels. Conclusion: HDL levels are significantly higher in pregnant women with GDM compared to pregnant women without GDM. HDL level is significantly associated with GDM even after adjustment for age, BMI, and gestational age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".