Cognitive impairment in preeclampsia complicated by eclampsia and pulmonary edema after delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess cognitive function in women with preeclampsia stratified by severity, before and after onset of disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study performed at a referral hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. Pregnant women between 20 and 42 weeks of gestation with eclampsia, pulmonary edema and preeclampsia without severe features, and a normotensive pregnancy were approached. Women were included at diagnosis of preeclampsia or at admission for delivery (women with normotensive pregnancies). Two cognitive assessments, the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire to assess the cognitive function subjectively before inclusion in the study, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment to assess the current cognitive function objectively before discharge from the hospital after delivery, were performed. RESULTS: We included 61 women with eclampsia, 28 with preeclampsia complicated by pulmonary edema, 38 with preeclampsia without severe features, and 26 with normotensive pregnancies. There was no difference in cognitive function from early pregnancy between groups. Women with eclampsia and preeclampsia complicated by pulmonary edema scored lower on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at time of discharge compared with women with normotensive pregnancies. The results were attenuated in pulmonary edema after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Women with preeclampsia complicated by pulmonary edema and in particular eclampsia had impaired cognitive function after onset of disease compared with women with normotensive pregnancies. The impairment did not seem to be present before onset of disease. Women with preeclampsia without severe features did not have impaired cognitive function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".