MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212985730 · doi:10.3390/ijerph19042063

Predictors of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Pregnant Women Living with Obesity: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4212985730 on OpenAlexafffund
Romina Fakhraei, Kathryn M. Denize, Alexandre Simon, Ayni Sharif, Julia Zhu-Pawlowsky, Alysha L. J. Dingwall‐Harvey, Brian Hutton, Misty Pratt, Becky Skidmore, Nadera Ahmadzai, Nicola Heslehurst, Louise Hayes, Angela C. Flynn, Maria P. Vélez, Graeme N. Smith, Andrea Lanes, Natalie Rybak, Mark Walker, Laura Gaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalKingston Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineObesityObstetricsAdverse effectMEDLINEInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for pregnancy complications. Most studies to date are in large cohorts, with results presented in a way that assumes all women living with obesity are at equal risk. This study investigates which women living with obesity are at higher risk of specific pregnancy complications. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase identified 7894 prospective or retrospective cohort studies exploring predictors of adverse outcomes among pregnant women living with obesity. Following screening, 61 studies were deemed eligible. Studies were selected if the effects of exposure to any predictor amongst pregnant women living with obesity could be collected. Maternal characteristics assessed for association with adverse outcomes included maternal age, race/ethnicity, maternal height, mode of conception, complement activation factors, and history of various comorbidities/procedures. Gestational diabetes mellitus was the most studied outcome (n = 32), followed by preterm birth (n = 29), preeclampsia (n = 27), low birthweight infants (n = 20), small for gestational age newborns (n = 12), and stillbirth (n = 7). This review identified important characteristics that should be considered during the screening and follow-up sessions of pregnant women living with obesity, including pre-existing type 1 diabetes, maternal age < 20 years or ≥35 years, non-White ethnicity, abdominal adiposity obesity, and history of bariatric surgery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207