MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386703850 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073545

Study of How Adiposity in Pregnancy has an Effect on outcomeS (SHAPES): protocol for a prospective cohort study

2023· article· en· W4386703850 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Heslehurst, Raya Vinogradov, Giang T Nguyen, Theophile Bigirumurame, M. Dawn Teare, Louise Hayes, Susan C. Lennie, Victoria Murtha, Rebecca Tothill, Janine Smith, John Allotey, Luke Vale

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyPregnancyProtocol (science)Cohort studyObstetricsAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Maternal obesity increases the risk of multiple maternal and infant pregnancy complications, such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. Current UK guidelines use body mass index (BMI) to identify which women require additional care due to increased risk of complications. However, BMI may not accurately predict which women will develop complications during pregnancy as it does not determine amount and distribution of adipose tissue. Some adiposity measures (eg, waist circumference, ultrasound measures of abdominal visceral fat) can better identify where body fat is stored, which may be useful in predicting those women who need additional care. Methods and analysis This prospective cohort study (SHAPES, Study of How Adiposity in Pregnancy has an Effect on outcomeS) aims to evaluate the prognostic performance of adiposity measures (either alone or in combination with other adiposity, sociodemographic or clinical measures) to estimate risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Pregnant women (n=1400) will be recruited at their first trimester ultrasound scan (11+2–14+1weeks’) at Newcastle upon Tyne National Health Service Foundation Trust, UK. Early pregnancy adiposity measures and clinical and sociodemographic data will be collected. Routine data on maternal and infant pregnancy outcomes will be collected from routine hospital records. Regression methods will be used to compare the different adiposity measures with BMI in terms of their ability to predict pregnancy complications. If no individual measure performs better than BMI, multivariable models will be developed and evaluated to identify the most parsimonious model. The apparent performance of the developed model will be summarised using calibration, discrimination and internal validation analyses. Ethics and dissemination Ethical favourable opinion has been obtained from the North East: Newcastle & North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 22/NE/0035). All participants provide informed consent to take part in SHAPES. Planned dissemination includes peer-reviewed publications and additional dissemination appropriate to target audiences, including policy briefs for policymakers, media/social-media coverage for public and conferences for research Trial registration number ISRCTN82185177 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→