Impact of maternal <scp>HIV</scp> infection on perinatal outcomes: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maternal HIV infection remains a significant global health concern with potential repercussions on perinatal outcomes. Emphasis on early intervention to improve peri- and postnatal outcomes in infected mothers and infants is a valid therapeutic concern. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively analyze perinatal outcomes associated with maternal HIV infection and evaluate adverse effects associated with the HIV infection in the existing literature. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar was conducted from 2013 to September 2023, using relevant MeSH terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: The included studies encompassed original studies, cross-sectional, prospective, retrospective studies and observational studies focused on perinatal outcomes in the context of maternal HIV infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selected studies underwent rigorous data collection and comprehensive quality checks and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Nine eligible studies from Brazil, China, India, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania, the USA, and Canada were included. These studies have consistently demonstrated that maternal HIV infection is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. The analysis revealed a higher risk of preterm birth (OR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.39-1.78), low birth weight (OR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.18-1.49), and small for gestational age (OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.24-1.53) among infants born to mothers living with HIV. Notably, the impact of antiretroviral treatment (ART) on these outcomes varied, but maternal HIV infection remained a significant risk factor regardless of income level and geographic region. CONCLUSION: Maternal HIV infection is consistently associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and improved prenatal care in pregnant women with HIV infection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".