MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303859152 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17320

Risk factors for pre‐eclampsia in clinical practice guidelines: Comparison with the evidence

2022· article· en· W4303859152 on OpenAlexaff
Terteel Elawad, G. M. Scott, Jeffrey N. Bone, Helen Elwell, Cristina Escalona Lopez, Véronique Filippi, Marcus Green, Asma Khalil, Mai‐Lei Woo Kinshella, Hiten D. Mistry, Kelly Pickerill, Reshma Shanmugam, Joel Singer, Rosemarie Townsend, Eleni Tsigas, Marianne Vidler, Marie‐Laure Volvert, Peter von Dadelszen, Laura A. Magee

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEclampsiaPopulationRisk factorOverweightPregnancyObesityObstetricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare pre-eclampsia risk factors identified by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with risk factors from hierarchical evidence review, to guide pre-eclampsia prevention. DESIGN: Our search strategy provided hierarchical evidence of relationships between risk factors and pre-eclampsia using Medline (Ovid), searched from January 2010 to January 2021. SETTING: Published studies and CPGs. POPULATION: Pregnant women. METHODS: We evaluated the strength of association and quality of evidence (GRADE). CPGs (n = 15) were taken from a previous systematic review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pre-eclampsia. RESULTS: Of 78 pre-eclampsia risk factors, 13 (16.5%) arise only during pregnancy. Strength of association was usually 'probable' (n = 40, 51.3%) and the quality of evidence was low (n = 35, 44.9%). The 'major' and 'moderate' risk factors proposed by 8/15 CPGs were not well aligned with the evidence; of the ten 'major' risk factors (alone warranting aspirin prophylaxis), associations with pre-eclampsia were definite (n = 4), probable (n = 5) or possible (n = 1), based on moderate (n = 4), low (n = 5) or very low (n = 1) quality evidence. Obesity ('moderate' risk factor) was definitely associated with pre-eclampsia (high-quality evidence). The other ten 'moderate' risk factors had probable (n = 8), possible (n = 1) or no (n = 1) association with pre-eclampsia, based on evidence of moderate (n = 1), low (n = 5) or very low (n = 4) quality. Three risk factors not identified by the CPGs had probable associations (high quality): being overweight; 'prehypertension' at booking; and blood pressure of 130-139/80-89 mmHg in early pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-eclampsia risk factors in CPGs are poorly aligned with evidence, particularly for the strongest risk factor of obesity. There is a lack of distinction between risk factors identifiable in early pregnancy and those arising later. A refresh of the strategies advocated by CPGs is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.427
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.427
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207