MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313414697 · doi:10.3390/jcm12010205

The Association of Placental Abruption and Pediatric Neurological Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4313414697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Irina Oltean, Ajay Rajaram, Ken Tang, James Macpherson, Tadiwanashe Hondonga, Aanchal Rishi, Regan Toltesi, Rachel Gowans, Ashkan Jahangirnia, Youssef Nasr, Sarah Lawrence, Dina El Demellawy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityWestern UniversityCarleton UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPlacental abruptionObstetricsSystematic reviewAssociation (psychology)MEDLINEPediatricsPregnancyInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Placental histopathology provides insights, or “snapshots”, into relevant antenatal factors that could elevate the risk of perinatal brain injury. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing frequencies of adverse neurological outcomes in infants born to women with placental abruption versus without abruption. Records were sourced from MEDLINE, Embase, and the CENTRAL Trials Registry from 1946 to December 2019. Studies followed the PRISMA guidelines and compared frequencies of neurodevelopmental morbidities in infants born to pregnant women with placental abruption (exposure) versus women without placental abruption (comparator). The primary endpoint was cerebral palsy. Periventricular and intraventricular (both severe and any grades of IVH) and any histopathological neuronal damage were the secondary endpoints. Study methodologic quality was assessed by the Ottawa–Newcastle scale. Estimated odds ratios (OR) and hazards ratio (HR) were derived according to study design. Data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model expressed as pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals. We included eight observational studies in the review, including 1245 infants born to women with placental abruption. Results of the random effects meta-analysis show that the odds of infants born to pregnant women with placental abruption who experience cerebral palsy is higher than in infants born to pregnant women without placental abruption (OR 5.71 95% CI (1.17, 27.91); I2 = 84.0%). There is no statistical difference in the odds of infants born to pregnant women with placental abruption who experience severe IVH (grade 3+) (OR 1.20 95% CI (0.46, 3.11); I2 = 35.8%) and any grade of IVH (OR 1.20 95% CI (0.62, 2.32); I2 = 32.3%) vs. women without placental abruption. There is no statistically significant difference in the odds of infants born to pregnant women with placental abruption who experience PVL vs. pregnant women without placental abruption (OR 6.51 95% CI (0.94, 45.16); I2 = 0.0%). Despite our meta-analysis suggesting increased odds of cerebral palsy in infants born to pregnant women with placental abruption versus without abruption, this finding should be interpreted cautiously, given high heterogeneity and overall poor quality of the included studies.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.033
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207