Association Between Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies With a Quantitative Bias Analysis of Uncontrolled Confounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) had an increased risk of hypertension remains unclear. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to examine the association between GDM and hypertension and performed a quantitative bias analysis to quantify the impact of uncontrolled confounding due to antenatal psychological stress. METHODS: We searched databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, and Web of Science) through 2022/11. Eligible studies were cohort studies that reported the association of GDM with hypertension. We assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. We pooled adjusted risk ratios with 95% CIs using a random effects model. We performed the quantitative bias analysis using the bias formula. RESULTS: We included 15 cohort studies, with a total of 3 959 520 (GDM, 175 378; non-GDM, 3 784 142) individuals. During the follow-up of 2 to 20 years, 106 560 cases of hypertension were reported. We found that GDM was associated with a higher risk of hypertension (pooled risk ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.47, 2.17]). The risk ratio was lower among cohorts assessing incident (1.58 [95% CI, 1.29, 1.95]) than prevalent hypertension (2.60 [95% CI, 2.40, 2.83]). However, other subgroup analyses showed no differences. The quantitative bias analysis revealed that if the uncontrolled confounder of antenatal psychological stress was additionally adjusted, the positive association between GDM and hypertension would attenuate slightly (≤18%) but remains positive. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations of this study included residual confounding and discrepancies in GDM and hypertension ascertainments. Our findings indicate that GDM is positively associated with hypertension after the index pregnancy.
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 | 0.057 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".