Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Transplant recipients experience high rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, contemporary estimates of the association between solid organ transplantation and adverse pregnancy outcomes are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the association between solid organ transplantation and adverse pregnancy outcomes and to quantify the incidence of allograft rejection and allograft loss during pregnancy. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases were searched from January 1, 2000, to June 20, 2024, and reference lists were manually reviewed. Study Selection: Cohort and case-control studies that reported at least 1 adverse pregnancy outcome in pregnant women with solid organ transplantation vs without solid organ transplant or studies that reported allograft outcomes in pregnant women with solid organ transplantation were included following independent dual review of abstracts and full-text articles. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators abstracted data and independently appraised risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall pooled estimates using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Reporting followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary pregnancy outcomes were preeclampsia, preterm birth (<37 weeks), and low birth weight (<2500 g). Secondary pregnancy outcomes were live birth rate, gestation, very preterm birth (<32 weeks), very low birth weight (<1500 g), and cesarean delivery. Allograft outcomes were allograft loss and rejection during pregnancy. Results: Data from 22 studies and 93 565 343 pregnancies (4786 pregnancies in solid organ transplant recipients) were included; 14 studies reported adverse pregnancy outcomes, and 13 studies provided data for allograft outcomes. Pregnancies in organ transplant recipients were associated with significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.83 [95% CI, 3.45-9.87]; I2 = 77.4%), preterm birth (aOR, 6.65 [95% CI, 4.09-12.83]; I2 = 81.8%), and low birth weight (aOR, 6.51 [95% CI, 2.85-14.88]; I2 = 90.6%). The incidence of acute allograft rejection was 2.39% (95% CI, 1.20%-3.96%; I2 = 68.5%), and the incidence of allograft loss during pregnancy was 1.55% (95% CI, 0.05%-4.44%; I2 = 69.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, pregnancies in recipients of a solid organ transplant were associated with a 4 to 6 times increased risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight during pregnancy. There was a low overall risk of graft rejection or loss during 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".