Association between gestational visit‐to‐visit blood pressure variability and adverse neonatal outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors aimed to explore the association between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) in pregnant women and adverse neonatal outcomes. The study included 52 891 pregnant women. BPV was calculated as standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP). All participants were divided into four groups by the quartiles of BPV. When comparing the highest quartiles to the lowest quartiles of DBP SD in all participants, the fully adjusted ORs were 1.19 (95% CI 1.11-1.27, p for trend < .001) for fetal distress, 1.32 (95% CI 1.14-1.54, p for trend < .001) for small for gestational age, 1.32 (95% CI 1.06-1.63, p for trend = .003) for 1-min Apgar score ≤ 7. When comparing the highest quartiles to the lowest quartiles of DBP CV, ORs were 1.22 (95% CI 1.14-1.30, p for trend < .001) for fetal distress, 1.38 (95% CI 1.17-1.61, p for trend < .001) for small for gestational age, 1.43 (95% CI 1.14-1.79, p for trend < .001) for 1-min Apgar score ≤ 7. ORs for preterm birth and 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 were not statistically significant. However, in participants with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, ORs for preterm birth were 2.80 (95% CI 1.99-3.94, p for trend < .001) in DBP SD and 3.25 (95% CI 2.24-4.72, p for trend < .001) in DBP CV when extreme quartiles were compared. In conclusion, higher visit-to-visit BPV was associated with adverse neonatal outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".