P-601 Comparison of adverse obstetric outcomes in women with the hyperandrogenic syndromes, polycystic ovary syndrome and Cushing’s syndrome: an evaluation of a population database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study question How does the risk for adverse obstetric outcomes differ among women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and women with Cushing’s syndrome (CUS)? Summary answer PCOS increased the risk of gestational diabetes and cesarean section relative to CUS, whereas CUS increased the prevalence of operative vaginal delivery and blood transfusions. What is known already PCOS and CUS are hyperandrogenic disorders that have previously been associated with unique adverse obstetric outcomes. Despite there being similarities in the hyperandrogenism and insulin resistance of these disorders, there is a lack of knowledge when comparing their specific risks of pregnancy complications. Study design, size, duration A retrospective population-based study utilizing data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project—Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS), was performed. A dataset of all deliveries between 2004 and 2014 inclusively, was created. 14 881 deliveries to women with PCOS and 134 deliveries to women with CUS were identified. The HCUP-NIS presents information on approximately 20% of admissions to US hospitals. Data was not continued into 2015 when ICD-10 codes were used, which are not comparable. Participants/materials, setting, methods Descriptive analyses were performed to compare the demographic features among both groups using chi-squared tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). According to Tri-Council Policy statement (2018), IRB approval was not required, given data was anonymous and publicly available. Main results and the role of chance At baseline, CUS was associated with a higher risk of chronic hypertension (P < 0.001), pregestational diabetes mellitus (P = 0.01), thyroid disease (P = 0.004), and higher rates of smoking during pregnancy (P = 0.02) whereas PCOS was associated with higher rates of obesity (P = 0.01). In terms of obstetric outcomes, PCOS increased the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (P = 0.002, adjusted[a] OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.46 to 5.12), and cesarean section (P < 0.001, aOR 2.63; 95% CI 1.81-3.83) in comparison to CUS. CUS increased the prevalence of operative vaginal delivery (P < 0.001, aOR 0.10; 95% CI 0.06-0.14), and transfusion (P = 0.002, aOR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11-0.59) in comparison to deliveries to women with PCOS. No significant differences were found in terms of pregnancy-induced hypertension (P = 0.78), gestational hypertension (P = 0.86), preeclampsia (P = 0.25), preeclampsia or eclampsia superimposed on pre-existing hypertension (P = 0.13), premature rupture of membranes (P = 0.99), preterm delivery (P = 0.17), placental abruption (P = 0.82), chorioamnionitis (P = 0.16), spontaneous vaginal delivery (P = 0.35), postpartum hemorrhage (P = 0.29), and maternal infection (P = 0.11). In terms of neonatal outcomes, both deliveries to women with PCOS and women with CUS had similar outcomes for small for gestational age infants (P = 0.52), intrauterine fetal demise (P = 0.94), and congenital anomalies (P = 0.53). Limitations, reasons for caution The data within this retrospective cohort study relies on the accuracy of the individuals collecting the data. Data on medication use and compliance was unavailable. Wider implications of the findings Pregnant women with PCOS and CUS are at risk for certain specific obstetric complications, with most risks being similar. The magnitude of the insulin resistance in PCOS may be greater than in CUS due to the increased risk of gestational diabetes in PCOS when controlling for obesity and confounding effects. Trial registration number Not applicable
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".