MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317738160 · doi:10.1111/ppe.12955

Small for date preterm infants and risk of higher blood pressure in later life: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4317738160 on OpenAlexaff
Tanis R. Fenton, Seham Elmrayed, Natalie V. Scime, Suzanne Tough, Jahaira Pinto, Fatemeh Zaer Sabet, Krista Wollny, Yoonshin Lee, Tyrone G. Harrison, Bibi Alladin, Michael S. Kramer, Maria B. Ospina, Diane Lorenzetti, Ada Madubueze, Alexander A. C. Leung, Manoj Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQueen's UniversityInterior HealthCanadian Mental Health AssociationLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaAlberta Children's HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSmall for gestational ageMeta-analysisConfoundingBlood pressureBirth weightCINAHLPediatricsLow birth weightGestational ageStudy heterogeneityObstetricsPsychological interventionPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Historical reports suggest that infants born small for gestational age (SGA) are at increased risk for high blood pressure (BP) at older ages after adjustment for later age body size. Such adjustment may be inappropriate since adiposity is a known cause of cardiovascular and metabolic disease. Objectives To assess the association between SGA births and later BP among preterm births, considering potential background confounders and over‐adjustment for later body size. Methods A database search of studies up to October 2022 included MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Studies were included if they reported BP (systolic [SBP] or diastolic [DBP]) (outcomes) for participants born preterm with SGA (exposure) or non‐SGA births. All screening, extraction steps, and risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias In Non‐randomised Studies of Interventions [ROBINS‐I] tool) were conducted in duplicate by two reviewers. Data were pooled in meta‐analysis using random‐effects models. We explored potential sources of heterogeneity. Results We found no meaningful difference in later BP between preterm infants with and without SGA status at birth. Meta‐analysis of 25 studies showed that preterm SGA, compared to preterm non‐SGA, was not associated with higher BP at age 2 and older with mean differences for SBP 0.01 mmHg (95% CI −0.10, 0.12, I 2 = 59.8%, n = 20,462) and DBP 0.01 mm Hg (95% CI −0.10, 0.12), 22 studies, ( I 2 = 53.0%, n = 20,182). Adjustment for current weight did not alter the results, which could be due to the lack of differences in later weight status in most of the included studies. The included studies were rated to be at risk of bias due to potential residual confounding, with a low risk of bias in other domains. Conclusions Evidence indicates that preterm infants born SGA are not at increased risk of developing higher BP as children or as adults as compared to non‐SGA preterm infants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatric and Perinatal EpidemiologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207