Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and risk of asthma in offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The association between hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP) and an increased risk of asthma in offspring remains controversial. No systematic review of this topic has been performed. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence regarding the association between HDP and the risk of asthma in offspring. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: On the basis of a prepared protocol, a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed using a detailed search strategy from the database inception to 17 January 2020. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies published in English reporting the diagnoses of maternal HDP and asthma in offspring were included. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed throughout the study. The estimated pooled ORs of HDP and asthma in offspring were calculated from the studies, and the meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies involving a total of 6 270 430 participants were included. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the overall methodological quality was good since 8 studies were of high quality and 2 studies were of moderate quality. After controlling for potential confounders, HDP was associated with a possible increased risk of asthma in offspring, with a pooled adjusted OR (aOR) of 1.19 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.26). The subgroup analyses according to HDP subgroups, sibling design, study quality, study location, offspring ages, singleton status, exposure assessment, outcome assessment and adjusted factors showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to HDP may be associated with an increased risk of asthma in offspring. Further research is needed to verify the results and determine whether the observed relationship is causal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020148250.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".