Maternal Eating Disorders and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous systematic reviews have reported on the relationship between eating disorders (EDs) and birth outcomes, but there are no existing meta-analyses on this topic. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the association between lifetime maternal EDs, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED) with low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth (PTB), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA), and miscarriage. Four databases were systematically searched for quantitative literature on maternal EDs that preceded birth outcomes. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The meta-analyses included 6 studies on miscarriage, 11 on PTB, 4 on LBW, 9 on SGA, and 4 on LGA. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to test the associations between EDs and birth outcomes. The results showed significant positive associations between AN and LBW (OR 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49, 2.03), AN and SGA (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.17, 1.65), BN and PTB (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04, 1.36), and BED and LGA (OR 1.43 95% CI 1.18, 1.72). EDs were not significantly correlated with miscarriage. These findings reveal the importance of screening for and treating EDs in pregnant women.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".