Assessing cardiovascular disease risk in women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A guidance paper for studies using administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and their association with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk represents a major public health concern. However, assessing CVD risk in women with a history of these conditions presents unique challenges, especially when studies are carried out using routinely collected data. OBJECTIVES: To summarise and describe key challenges related to the design and conduct of administrative studies assessing CVD risk in women with a history of HDP and provide concrete recommendations for addressing them in future research. METHODS: This is a methodological guidance paper. RESULTS: Several conceptual and methodological factors related to the data-generating mechanism and study conceptualisation, design/data management and analysis, as well as the interpretation and reporting of study findings should be considered and addressed when designing and carrying out administrative studies on this topic. Researchers should develop an a priori conceptual framework within which the research question is articulated, important study variables are identified and their interrelationships are carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS: To advance our understanding of CVD risk in women with a history of HDP, future studies should carefully consider and address the conceptual and methodological considerations outlined in this guidance paper. In highlighting these challenges, and providing specific recommendations for how to address them, our goal is to improve the quality of research carried out on this topic.
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 | 0.314 | 0.585 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".