Interpregnancy weight change and risks of stillbirth and infant mortality: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Interpregnancy weight change may impact two important adverse perinatal outcomes: stillbirth and infant mortality. This systematic review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on the association between interpregnancy weight change and stillbirth and infant mortality. Methods and analysis This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines and has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A comprehensive literature search of four online databases (Embase, Cochrane Libraries, Web of Science and Medline) will be conducted from inception to October 2023. Observational (longitudinal, cohort, case–control) and randomised controlled trials will be included. Interpregnancy weight/body mass index change between two consecutive pregnancies will be the exposure. The primary outcomes will be the incidence of stillbirth and infant mortality in subsequent pregnancy. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias in the randomised controlled studies and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used for observational studies. If there are sufficient data, a meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect size. Otherwise, qualitative descriptions of individual studies will be summarised. The heterogeneity will be statistically assessed using a χ 2 test and I 2 statistic. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this study as all results will be based on published papers. No primary data collection will be needed. Study findings will be presented at scientific conferences or published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Trial registration number A registration for this review has been submitted to PROSPERO under CRD42020222977.
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 | 0.101 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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".