Maternal glucose levels and future risk of developing cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Hyperglycaemia during pregnancy has been considered as one of the risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among women. Although the evidence regarding the association between gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and subsequent CVD has been synthesised, there are no systematic reviews covering the evidence of the association among the non-GDM population. This systematic review and meta-analysis, therefore, aim to fill the gap by summarising existing evidence on the association between maternal glucose levels and the risk of future CVD in pregnant women with or without a diagnosis of GDM. Methods and analysis This systematic review protocol was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Comprehensive literature searches were performed in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL to identify relevant papers from inception to 31 December 2022. All observational studies (case–control studies, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies) will be included. Two reviewers will perform the abstract and full-text screening based on the eligibility criteria through Covidence. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by using the I 2 test and Cochrane’s Q test. If the included studies are found to be homogeneous, pooled estimates will be calculated and meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager 5 (RevMan) software. Random effects will be used to determine weights for meta-analysis, if needed. Pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed, if needed. The study results will be presented in the sequence of main outcomes, secondary outcomes and important subgroup analysis for each type of glucose level separately. Ethics and dissemination Given no original data will be collected, ethics approval is not applicable for this review. The results of this review will be disseminated by publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022363037.
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 | 0.066 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.009 |
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".