Persisting risk factors for preeclampsia among high-risk pregnancies already using prophylactic aspirin: a multi-country retrospective investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant individuals at high-risk of developing preeclampsia, but less is known about those that develop preeclampsia even while using prophylactic aspirin for preeclampsia prevention as the best course of treatment.Objectives The objective of this study is to investigate the risk factors with the highest risk of developing preeclampsia among pregnant individuals already using aspirin from high-risk obstetrical centers across five countries.Design This is a secondary analysis of pregnant individuals from the Folic Acid Clinical Trial (FACT) who were using prophylactic aspirin before 16 weeks gestation. The FACT randomized control trial took place in 70 high risk obstetrical centers in Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Jamaica, and Argentina between 2011–2015. Participants were included if they had any of the risk factors for preeclampsia: diabetes, chronic hypertension, twin pregnancy, history of preeclampsia, and/or obesity (Body Mass Index ≥35). The outcomes of interest were preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia (<37 weeks). Log binomial regressions assessed factors significantly associated with any preeclampsia or preterm-preeclampsia (<37 weeks) using adjusted risk ratios (ARR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results There were 2296 pregnant individuals with complete information on aspirin included in this study. At baseline, all patients were at high risk of preeclampsia and were eligible for aspirin prophylaxis, however, only 660 (28.7%) were taking aspirin. Among the 660 pregnant individuals taking aspirin, 132 (20%) developed preeclampsia and 60 (9.09%) preterm preeclampsia. Among pregnant individuals using aspirin, the risks of preeclampsia were highest for twins (ARR:2.62, 95% CI: 1.68–4.11), history of preeclampsia (ARR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.74–3.38), and hypertension (ARR:1.92, 95% CI: 1.37–2.69). Similar trends were found for preterm-preeclampsia for twins (ARR:4.10, 95% CI:2.15–7.82), history of preeclampsia (ARR:2.75, 95% CI:1.62–4.67), and hypertension (ARR:2.18, 95% CI:1.28–3.72). No significant differences were found for obesity or diabetes.Conclusion These findings suggest that individuals with twin pregnancies, a history of preeclampsia, or hypertension may not benefit from aspirin to the same extent as those with other complications such as obesity or diabetes. Careful clinical monitoring for these risks factors is recommended and future research into the effectiveness in these populations would increase our understanding of the current best practice of prophylactic aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23781770 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01355159
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".