Symptoms of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome in pregnancy: a cross‐sectional, community‐based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and pregnancy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: International. SAMPLE: A total of 8941 female patients with a diagnosis of POTS. METHODS: Data from the survey were analysed using descriptive measures and stratified for comparisons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom course of POTS during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy loss, POTS onset during pregnancy and the impacts of a comorbid diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or an autoimmune disorder on symptoms during pregnancy. RESULTS: Overall, 40.8% (n = 3652) of participants reported one or more pregnancies. Most participants experienced worsening of symptoms in the first (62.6%) and third (58.9%) trimesters and 3 months after pregnancy (58.7%), and 81.1% experienced worsening symptoms at any point in their pregnancy. Most participants with worsening symptoms in the first trimester also experienced worsening symptoms in the second (61.6%) and third (68.1%) trimesters, but if they improved in the first trimester then this improvement persisted in the second and third trimesters. Of participants who reported that POTS was triggered by a specific event (41.3%), 8.1% reported pregnancy as the trigger for the onset. CONCLUSIONS: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome symptoms in the first trimester of pregnancy may help predict symptom course throughout the duration of pregnancy. Some individuals may experience an initial onset of POTS during pregnancy. This novel information may guide clinicians in counselling patients with POTS who are planning pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".