Adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with celiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women affected with celiac disease (CD), and to further estimate the impact of early disease diagnosis and subsequent adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD) on obstetric complications. Methods: A systematic search for English language observational studies was conducted in Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, from inception till April 2022, to identify relevant studies reporting on the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with CD. Odds ratios (OR) and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to combine data from case-control and cohort studies, respectively. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: In total, 14 cohort and 4 case-control studies were included and our analysis demonstrated that the risk for spontaneous abortion (RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.10-1.65), fetal growth restriction (RR 1.68, 95%CI 1.34-2.10), stillbirth (RR 1.57, 95%CI 1.17-2.10), preterm delivery (RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.12-1.49), cesarean delivery (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.03-1.16) and lower mean birthweight (mean difference -176.08, 95%CI -265.79 to -86.38) was significantly higher in pregnant women with CD. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that only undiagnosed CD increased risk for fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, preterm delivery and lower mean birthweight, whereas early diagnosis of CD was not linked to any adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusions: Undiagnosed CD is associated with a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Early CD diagnosis and appropriate management with GFD may ameliorate these associations.
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) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".