Common sleep disorders in pregnancy: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of common sleep disorders during pregnancy, including their characterization, prevalence, risk factors, and possible contribution to maternal and fetal outcomes. We conducted a quasi-systematic literature search of the MEDLINE database and identified 744 studies from 1991 through 2021, inclusive, that met our inclusion criteria. We synthesized the existing literature on sleep disorders during pregnancy and highlighted controversies, research gaps, and needed clinical developments. Our review covers a range of sleep disorders, including insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, restless legs syndrome, and circadian rhythm disorders. We discuss the prevalence of these disorders in pregnancy and their potential impact on maternal and fetal health outcomes. We also explore the relationship between sleep disorders, pre-pregnancy comorbidities such as obesity, and pregnancy-related conditions such as gestational diabetes mellitus and preeclampsia. In addition to summarizing the existing literature on sleep disorders during pregnancy, we also highlight opportunities for further research in this area. We suggest that future studies should strive to employ validated and objective measurement tools for sleep disorders and prioritize utilization of longitudinal methods with participant follow-up through postpartum, mid-life, menopause, and beyond. We also put forward investigation into the impact of circadian rhythm disruption on reproductive physiology and early pregnancy outcomes as an area of important work. Overall, our review provides valuable insights on sleep and reproduction and into common sleep disorders during pregnancy and their potential impact on maternal and fetal health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".