PREVALENCE AND PREDICTORS OF GERD IN PREGNANT WOMEN AND ITS EFFECT ON QUALITY OF LIFE AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong><em>Introduction: </em></strong><em>In accordance with the new Montreal criteria, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is classified as a disease that is related to troublesome symptoms and/or complications because of reflux of stomach contents into the esophagus. <strong>Objectives: </strong>The main objective of the study is to find the </em><em>prevalence and predictors of GERD in pregnant women and its effect on quality of life and pregnancy outcomes.<strong> Material and methods: </strong>This cross sectional study was conducted in Nishtar medical university during 2021. The GerdQ was used to diagnose GERD. The GerdQ comprises four predictors of GERD: (1) heartburn and regurgitation (symptoms of GERD, Montreal definition); (2) sleep disturbance; (3) use of medication (predictors of GERD, DIAMOND study), and (4) epigastric pain and nausea. (1) and (2) are positive predictors. (3) and (4) are negative predictors. </em><strong><em>Results: </em></strong><em>There were no significant differences between the GERD and non-GERD groups in terms of mean age, gravidity, education, and trimester. Of the 94 pregnant women, 28 were diagnosed with GERD. </em><strong><em>Conclusion: </em></strong><em>It is concluded that the prevalence of GERD in late pregnancy is high in Pakistan and is associated with poor QoL in pregnant women.</em>
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".