MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389920907 · doi:10.1038/s43856-023-00393-8

Refining the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389920907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineImpactUniversity of Calgary
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNovo Nordisk FondenNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesRobert Wood Johnson FoundationLunds UniversitetNational Human Genome Research InstituteWellcome TrustAustralian Diabetes SocietyMedical Research CouncilEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesNovo NordiskAmerican Diabetes AssociationNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsGestational diabetesMeta-analysisRefining (metallurgy)MedicineDiabetes mellitusObstetricsSystematic reviewMEDLINEPregnancyInternal medicineGestationEndocrinologyBiologyMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Perinatal outcomes vary for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The precise factors beyond glycemic status that may refine GDM diagnosis remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of potential precision markers for GDM. Methods Systematic literature searches were performed in PubMed and EMBASE from inception to March 2022 for studies comparing perinatal outcomes among women with GDM. We searched for precision markers in the following categories: maternal anthropometrics, clinical/sociocultural factors, non-glycemic biochemical markers, genetics/genomics or other -omics, and fetal biometry. We conducted post-hoc meta-analyses of a subset of studies with data on the association of maternal body mass index (BMI, kg/m 2 ) with offspring macrosomia or large-for-gestational age (LGA). Results A total of 5905 titles/abstracts were screened, 775 full-texts reviewed, and 137 studies synthesized. Maternal anthropometrics were the most frequent risk marker. Meta-analysis demonstrated that women with GDM and overweight/obesity vs. GDM with normal range BMI are at higher risk of offspring macrosomia (13 studies [ n = 28,763]; odds ratio [OR] 2.65; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.91, 3.68), and LGA (10 studies [ n = 20,070]; OR 2.23; 95% CI 2.00, 2.49). Lipids and insulin resistance/secretion indices were the most studied non-glycemic biochemical markers, with increased triglycerides and insulin resistance generally associated with greater risk of offspring macrosomia or LGA. Studies evaluating other markers had inconsistent findings as to whether they could be used as precision markers. Conclusions Maternal overweight/obesity is associated with greater risk of offspring macrosomia or LGA in women with GDM. Pregnancy insulin resistance or hypertriglyceridemia may be useful in GDM risk stratification. Future studies examining non-glycemic biochemical, genetic, other -omic, or sociocultural precision markers among women with GDM are warranted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.364
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.107 · 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