Association between Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with future cardiovascular disease (CVD), which may be mediated by diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarize evidence linking CRF with HDP before, during, and after pregnancy. We searched relevant databases to identify observational or randomized studies that measured CRF (VO2 max or peak, VO2 at anaerobic threshold, or work rate at peak VO2) in women with and without HDP. We pooled results using random effects models. Fourteen studies (n = 2406 women) reporting on CRF before, during, and after pregnancy were included. Before pregnancy, women who developed HDP had lower CRF (e.g., VO2max < 37 vs. ≥37 mL O2/min) than those without HDP (two studies, 811 women). VO2max at 14−18 weeks of pregnancy was marginally lower among women who developed preeclampsia vs. normotensive women (three studies, 275 women; mean difference 0.43 mL/kg/min [95% CI 0.97, 0.10]). Postpartum, there was a trend towards lower VO2peak in women with previous preeclampsia (three studies, 208 women; 0.26 mL/kg/min [−0.54, 0.02]). While exploratory, our findings raise the possibility that CRF can identify women at risk for HDP, and furthermore, that HDP confers a hit to a woman’s cardiorespiratory reserve.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".