The association between the Helicobacter pylori infection and the occurrence of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This meta-analysis aims to establish a more precise association between gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) incidence and H. pylori infection by amalgamating findings from prior case–control and cohort studies. Methods To identify relevant studies, we conducted a comprehensive search using the Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed (Medline), Web of Science (ISI), and Scopus from January 1990 to November 2022. The screening process involved reviewing the entire text, abstracts, and titles of retrieved articles. Subsequently, data extraction was performed from the selected articles, and their quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale checklist. Version 17 of STATA software was utilized for the analysis, with relative risks (RR) calculated along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) to quantify the impact of the included studies. Results This meta-analysis included eight observational and analytical studies. The combined risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnant women with H. pylori infection was found to be 1.97 times higher compared to pregnant women without infection (RR: 1.97; 95% CI 1.57–2.47; I 2 = 0.00%; P = 0.84). Conclusion Pregnant women with H. pylori infection are at an increased risk of developing gestational diabetes.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".