MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254080243 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-406764/v1

Assisted Reproductive Technology and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

2021· preprint· en· W4254080243 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hui Ju Chih, Flávia Tavares Silva Elias, Laura Gaudet, M. Vélez

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's University
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyOdds ratioPreeclampsiaObstetricsIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionCochrane LibraryAssisted reproductive technologyMeta-analysisIn vitro fertilisationCohort studyCohortConfidence intervalGynecologySpontaneous conceptionFertilityPopulationInfertilityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> <bold>Background</bold>Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) is one of the most common pregnancy complications and causes of maternal morbidity and mortality. Many cohort studies were conducted to study adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with pregnancies from assisted reproductive technology. We aimed to comprehensively review all available evidence to date to compare the odds of HDP and preeclampsia between pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and spontaneous pregnancies.<bold>Methods</bold>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on cohort studies identified from EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library (up to 2020) and manually using a structured search strategy. Cohort studies that compared pregnancies after IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm fertilization (ICSI) and SC with HDP or preeclampsia as the outcome of interest were included. The control group was women who conceived spontaneously without ART or fertility medications. Studies published in English, French, Chinese, and Portuguese were reviewed. Eligibility and quality of studies were evaluated by two reviewers independently. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Cohort Studies. The pooled results were reported in odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals based on random effects models. I-squared (I<sup>2</sup>) test was used to evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.<bold>Results</bold>Seventy-eight studies were included after a screening of 1,879 abstracts and 275 full text articles. Compared to SC, IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.54-1.74; I<sup>2</sup> = 79%) and multiple pregnancies (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.18-1.47; I<sup>2</sup> = 73%) were both associated with higher odds of HDP. Singleton pregnancies with oocyte donation had the highest odds of HDP out of all groups analyzed (OR 4.11; 95% CI 2.75-6.16; I<sup>2</sup> = 85%). Frozen embryo transfer resulted in higher odds of HDP (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.58-1.92; I<sup>2</sup> = 55%) than fresh embryo transfer (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.33-1.53; I<sup>2</sup> = 72%). Similar findings for preeclampsia were also reported.<bold>Conclusions</bold>Our meta-analysis confirmed that IVF/ICSI pregnancies are at high odds of HDP and preeclampsia than SC, irrespective of the plurality. The odds were especially high in frozen embryo transfer and oocyte donation 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207