MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192793103 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004506

Outcomes Associated With Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy in Twin Compared With Singleton Gestations

2021· article· en· W3192793103 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Amir Aviram, Howard Berger, Kasim E. Abdulaziz, Jon Barrett, Beth Murray‐Davis, Sarah D. McDonald, Michael Geary, Nir Melamed

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineGestationObstetricsSingletonTwin PregnancyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether pregnancy outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in twin pregnancies differ relatively from those in singleton pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of all women with a liveborn singleton or twin hospital birth in Ontario, Canada, between 2012 and 2019. Data were obtained from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network Ontario. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between women with and without hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in twin gestations, and separately in singleton gestations. Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and 95% CIs were generated using modified Poisson regression and were compared between twins and singletons using relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Overall, 932,218 women met the study criteria, of whom 917,542 (98.4%) and 14,676 (1.6%) had singleton and twin gestations, respectively. The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy was higher in women with twin compared with singleton gestations (14.4% vs 6.4%, aRR 1.85 [1.76-1.94]). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were associated with certain adverse outcomes in singleton gestations only and with other adverse outcomes in both the singleton and twin gestations, but the aRR was lower in twins. For example, preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation (singletons: 15.2% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 5.4% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 2.42; twins: 67.5% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 50.4% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 1.30) and neonatal respiratory morbidity (singletons: 16.3% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 8.7% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 1.50; twins: 39.8% [hypertensive disorders of pregnancy] vs 32.7% [no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy], aRR 1.13). These findings persisted in the subgroups of women with preeclampsia and early-onset preeclampsia. CONCLUSIONS: Although the absolute risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes is higher in twin compared with singleton pregnancies, the incremental risk of adverse outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders in twin pregnancies is lower than the incremental risk in singleton pregnancies. These findings may be attributed in part to the higher baseline risk of preterm birth and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin compared with singleton pregnancies.

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)0.007
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207