Association between maternal adiposity measures and adverse maternal outcomes of pregnancy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
are considered to be at risk and should receive additional care, although approximately half will have uncomplicated pregnancies. This systematic review aimed to identify early pregnancy measures of adiposity associated with adverse maternal health outcomes. Searches included six databases, reference lists, citations, and contacting authors. Screening and quality assessment were carried out by two authors independently. Random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were conducted. Seventy studies were included with a pooled sample of 89,588 women. Meta-analysis showed significantly increased odds of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with higher waist circumference (WC) categories (1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 1.88) and per unit increase in WC (1.31, 95% CI 1.03, 1.67). Women with GDM had higher WC than controls (mean difference [MD] 6.18 cm, 95% CI 3.92, 8.44). WC was significantly associated with hypertensive disorders, delivery-related outcomes, metabolic syndrome, and composite pregnancy outcomes. Waist to hip ratio was significantly associated with GDM, hypertensive disorders, and delivery-related outcomes. Fat mass, neck circumference, skinfolds, and visceral fat were significantly associated with adverse outcomes, although limited data were available. Our findings identify the need to explore how useful adiposity measures are at predicting risk in pregnancy, compared with BMI, to direct care to women with the greatest need.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".