Measures of fetal growth and preterm birth and risk of endometriosis and adenomyosis in adult life: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exposures in utero are suggested to play a role in the etiology of endometriosis and adenomyosis, although the current evidence is inconclusive. Knowledge about potential prenatal programming and early life exposures that may affect this risk is of high importance, to focus potential preventive strategies for the diseases already during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to review systematically the literature of the association between measures of fetal growth and preterm birth and endometriosis and adenomyosis in adult life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and by search on PubMed and EMBASE was carried out. We included published case-control and cohort studies. We excluded studies without a reference group, eg case series, case reports as well as commentaries, letters and editorials. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses using a random-effect inverse variance weighted model were performed. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021249322. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. In general, the quality scores of the studies were moderate. We found that the risk of endometriosis was 26% higher in women born with a birthweight <2.5 kg (pooled odds ratio [pOR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.52) and 32% higher in women born preterm (pOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01-1.72) than in the reference groups. The studies on adenomyosis pointed towards no association, but a meta-analysis was unfeasible due to the small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that low birthweight and being born preterm were associated with endometriosis in adult life, but the results must be interpreted cautiously. No solid conclusion could be made regarding adenomyosis due to a limited number of published studies, but the studies included found no association. The results support the hypothesis of a potential early programming effect of endometriosis. However, the body of evidence is sparse and this hypothesis needs to be investigated further.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".