MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400297275 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deae108.1072

P-752 Association between obesity in women with multiple gestations and adverse obstetric outcomes: a study of an American population database with over 136,000 unique deliveries

2024· article· en· W4400297275 on OpenAlexaff
Naomi Suissa, M Dahan, Haitham Baghlaf, Ahmad Badeghiesh

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestationObstetricsPopulationPregnancyObesityDatabaseEnvironmental healthInternal medicineComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question The purpose of this study is to compare obese and non-obese women with multiple pregnancies to determine the effects on pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes. Summary answer Obesity and multiple gestations are independent risk factors for adverse obstetric outcomes. Combined, obesity in multiple gestation increases risk of maternal, delivery, and neonatal complications. What is known already Obesity is a pandemic and multiple pregnancies are a known consequence of assisted reproductive technologies. Obese women (body mass index [BMI] >30kg/m2) are at higher risk of hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, fetal growth complications, stillbirth, preterm birth, labour complications, caesarean deliveries, wound infection, venous thromboembolism, and adverse neonatal outcomes. Multiple gestation is associated with greater obstetric risks, including miscarriage, preterm birth, gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders, operative delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, congenital anomalies, and fetal growth restriction. The combined effects are not well-established. Study design, size, duration We conducted a retrospective population-based study utilizing data collected between 2004 and 2014 inclusively, from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample. We evaluated deliveries using the international classification of diseases [ICD], ninth edition, clinical modification codes for delivery-related discharge diagnosis and birth-related procedural diagnosis. All women with a diagnosis of multiple pregnancies were selected. They were subsequently divided based on the ICD-9 code for obesity. A total of 137,303 multiple pregnancies were analyzed. Participants/materials, setting, methods Within the 137,303 multiple pregnancies, 130,542 (95%) were non-obese, while 6,761 (5%) were obese. An initial analysis was performed to identify the prevalence of obesity in women with multiple pregnancies. We then compared baseline clinical and demographic characteristics between women with obesity to those without obesity using chi-squared tests. Subsequently, binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore comparisons between the obese and non-obese groups while adjusting for the potential confounding effects. Main results and the role of chance Over the 11-year study period, there was a statistically significant increase in prevalence of obesity for women with multiple gestations (p < 0.0001). The obese group was at higher risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension (adjusted odd’s ratio [aOR]=1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.77-2.02), gestational hypertension (aOR=1.84, CI = 1.65-2.05), preeclampsia (aOR=1.68, CI = 1.55-1.81), preeclampsia or eclampsia superimposed on pre-existing hypertension (aOR=1.86, CI = 1.58-2.20), gestational diabetes mellitus (aOR=2.65, CI = 2.44-2.87), and placenta previa (aOR=0.57, CI = 0.39-0.85). They were more likely to have preterm premature rupture of membranes (aOR=1.19, CI = 1.06-1.34), chorioamnionitis (aOR=1.24, CI = 1.03-1.51), caesarean sections (aOR=1.28, CI = 1.18-1.38), wound complications (aOR=1.65, CI = 1.31-2.08), and transfusions (aOR=0.77, CI = 0.67-0.89). They were less likely to have small for gestational age neonates (aOR=0.88, CI = 0.79-0.97), though more likely to have neonates with congenital anomalies (aOR=1.56, CI = 1.16-2.10). Conversely, for certain factors, the outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese women with multiple gestation including rates of eclampsia (p = 0.07), abruptio placenta (p = 0.82), hysterectomy (p = 0.36), postpartum hemorrhage (p = 0.08), maternal death (p = 0.98), maternal infection (p = 0.10), deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.17), pulmonary embolism (p = 0.75), venous thromboembolism (p = 0.15), disseminated intravascular coagulation (p = 0.85) and intrauterine fetal demise (p = 0.52). Limitations, reasons for caution The database is retrospective and relies on hospitals reporting elevated body mass index, which may not always be consistently recognized, potentially resulting in an underestimation of the total number of obese women. However, this only stands to support the increased risks detected in this study as being legitimate. Wider implications of the findings We addresses a significant gap in the literature by simultaneously exploring the impacts of multiple pregnancies and maternal obesity on obstetric complications. This can guide clinical practice, encouraging single embryo transfer in obese women undergoing in-vitro fertilization and tailored care for obese patients with multiple pregnancies, anticipating the associated risks. Trial registration number not applicable

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207