Short interpregnancy interval can lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The evidence of some previous papers was insufficient in studying the causal association between interpregnancy interval (IPI) and adverse pregnancy outcomes. In addition, more literature have been updated worldwide during the last 10 years. Methods: English and Chinese articles published from January 1980 to August 2021 in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched. Then following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we screened the articles. Utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), we evaluated the quality of the included articles. The literature information extraction table was set up in Excel, and the meta-analysis was performed with Stata 16.0 software (Texas, USA). Results: A total of 41 articles were included in the meta-analysis, and NOS scores were four to eight. The short IPI after delivery was the risk factor of preterm birth (pooled odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.42-1.57), very preterm birth (pooled OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.55-2.14), low birth weight (pooled OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.24-1.43), and small for gestational age (pooled OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.21), offspring death (pooled OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.51-1.69), NICU (pooled OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.01-1.57), and congenital abnormality (pooled OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05-1.16), while was not the risk factor of gestational hypertension (pooled OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.98) or gestational diabetes (pooled OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.93-1.20). Conclusion: Short IPI (IPI < 6 months) can lead to adverse perinatal outcomes, while it is not a risk factor for gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension. Therefore, more high-quality studies covering more comprehensive indicators of maternal and perinatal pregnancy outcomes are needed to ameliorate the pregnancy policy for women of childbearing age.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".