Perinatal Outcomes and Related Risk Factors of Single vs Twin Pregnancy Complicated by Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Perinatal outcomes and related risk factors of single vs twin pregnancy complicated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were clarified, providing evidence for developing preventive measures. Methods. The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM), CQVIP, Wanfang, and PubMed databases were searched for published research on the perinatal outcomes and risk factors of single and twin pregnancy complicated by GDM from 2000 to 2021. The quality of the included literature was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included literature was conducted using RevMan5.3 software. Results. Relative to a single pregnancy group, infertility, gestational weight gain, and family history of diabetes presented statistical significance in the twin pregnancy group ( P < 0.05 ); gestational age at delivery, cesarean section, preterm birth < 37 weeks, and preeclampsia presented statistical significance in the twin pregnancy group ( P < 0.05 ); and neonatal birth weight, small for gestational age (SGA), neonatal asphyxia, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, and neonatal death presented statistical significance in the twin pregnancy group ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Infertility, prenatal weight gain, and diabetes in the family are all risk factors for postpartum impaired glucose metabolism in pregnant women with GDM who are carrying twins. The gestational age at delivery, cesarean section, preterm birth < 37 weeks, and preeclampsia of twin pregnant women with diabetes will affect the perinatal status of twin pregnant women. Neonatal birth weight, SGA, neonatal asphyxia, neonatal hypoglycemia, NRDS, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal death, etc. should be paid special attention in the perinatal process.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".