Pregnancy-Related Complications and Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy-related complications are associated with a higher risk of various incident cardiovascular diseases, but their specific potential relationship with incident atrial fibrillation (AF) is less clear. This systematic review summarises the available evidence from observational studies which have examined associations between pregnancy-related complications and the risk of AF. MEDLINE and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched for studies between 1990 to 10 February 2022. Pregnancy-related complications examined included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), gestational diabetes, placental abruption, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age and stillbirth. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to evaluate the results of the included studies. Nine observational studies were included, with eight eligible for narrative synthesis. Sample sizes ranged from 1839 to 2,359,386. Median follow-up ranged from 2 to 36 years. Six studies reported that pregnancy-related complications were associated with a significantly increased risk of incident AF. Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals) for the four studies that evaluated HDP ranged from 1.1 (0.8-1.6) to 1.9 (1.4-2.7). For the four studies that evaluated pre-eclampsia, HRs ranged from 1.2 (0.9-1.6) to 1.9 (1.7-2.2). Current evidence from observational studies suggests pregnancy-related complications are associated with a significantly higher risk of incident AF. However, only a small number of studies examining each pregnancy-related complication were identified, and considerable statistical heterogeneity was observed. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to confirm the association between pregnancy-related complications and incident AF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".