Risk factors for asthma exacerbation during pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Asthma is the most common medical condition to affect pregnancy. Asthma exacerbations occur in up to 45% of pregnant women and have been associated with adverse perinatal and infant outcomes. Conflicting literature exists regarding the risk factors for exacerbations, and no synthesis of the literature currently exists. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine risk factors for asthma exacerbations during pregnancy among pregnant women with asthma. Methods This protocol has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocols checklist. A systematic search will be conducted in the electronic MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register databases (from January 2000 onwards). Eligibility of each publication will be determined based on predefined selection criteria. Prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be included. Quality of included studies will be determined using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Pooled relative risk will be computed using random-effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the chi-squared test and the I 2 parameter. Publication bias will be assessed by inspecting a funnel plot for asymmetry and with the Egger’s test of analyses including ten studies or more. Discussion The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will discuss the potential risk factors for asthma exacerbations during pregnancy. This may aid healthcare professionals in early identification of pregnant women with asthma at risk of poor outcomes, providing the opportunity to implement early interventions in order to avoid deterioration of asthma symptoms during pregnancy. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196190
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.035 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".