World Health Organization Versus Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India Approaches in the Screening of Gestational Diabetes Among Pregnant Women With Risk Factors: A Study Among Rural Population of Telangana, South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) represents a pathological condition wherein pregnant women (PW) suffer from glycemic dysregulation, which predisposes them to an increased risk of developing complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. The most commonly used guidelines to screen for GDM include those provided by the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Canadian Diabetes Association, and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) guidelines are national-level recommendations to screen for GDM in India. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of DIPSI criteria versus the WHO guidelines in screening for GDM among the rural population of Telangana, South India Methods A total of 300 PW aged 19-35 years with a gestational age of 24-28 weeks attending the antenatal clinic attached to Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS), Vikarabad, Telangana, India were included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of MIMS, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Of the 300 subjects included, 75 PW were categorized as at-risk for GDM based on risk factors and were included for further analysis. The data relating to body mass index (BMI), oral glucose tolerance test, and the diagnosis of GDM based on DIPSI and the WHO criteria were collected. Results Out of the 75 PW included in the study, an overall GDM prevalence of 32% was noted among which 20 (26.7%) were diagnosed using the WHO criteria, 12 (16%) by DIPSI criteria, and the remaining 73.3% were non-GDM women. The mean gestational age and BMI among non-GDM and GDM patients were 24.74±4.15 weeks, 22.24±3.60 kg/m2, and 25.70±4.40, 24.48±3.37 kg/m2 (p<0.01), respectively. The activities of glucose at the second hour after a GTT among non-GDM and GDM cases were 113.70±20.4 mg/dL and 128.04±18.6 mg/dL (p=0.004), respectively. Conclusion DIPSI criteria could identify fewer numbers of GDM women as compared to the WHO criteria. Although the DIPSI criteria are convenient and prescribe less number of interventions, they could possibly miss many cases of GDM. Moreover, PW who remain undiagnosed could, in the future, be at risk of developing diabetes. Based on the study results and because risks should outweigh the benefits, we propose that DIPSI cannot be implemented as a single criterion to screen for GDM among PW in Indian settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".