Proton pump inhibitors use and risk of preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Preeclampsia is one of the common complications of pregnancy and is characterized by high blood pressure. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease among pregnant women. Recently, multiple epidemiological studies suggested the association between PPIs use and the risk of preeclampsia. This study aims to review the evidence and meta-analyse the pooled risk of preeclampsia in PPI users from epidemiological studies. Databases-MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Emcare, and CINAHL (EBSCO) as well as sources of grey literature, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched to identify the epidemiological studies assessing the association between PPIs use and the risk of preeclampsia. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be performed by two independent authors. The risk of bias among included studies will be evaluated by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The pooled effect of PPIs use on the risk of preeclampsia in pregnant women is the primary outcome of interest. Meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager version 5.4.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".