MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402451897 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082424

Arterial stiffness after 6 weeks postdelivery in women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review protocol

2024· review· en· W4402451897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xolani B. Mbongozi, Stuart Galloway, Angus M. Hunter, Charles Bitamazire Businge

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Higher Education and Training
KeywordsMedicineArterial stiffnessCINAHLCochrane LibraryMEDLINESystematic reviewPopulationPregnancyMeta-analysisInternal medicineBlood pressureEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality. The risk of developing cardiovascular diseases following HDP is high. Arterial stiffness is a prognostic indicator for cardiovascular disease in the general population, and it is elevated during pregnancy in women with HDP. No systematic reviews have been conducted to determine if arterial stiffness remains elevated beyond puerperium in these women with HDP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic literature search in the following electronic databases: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Web of Science and CINAHL. The review will consider studies that investigate arterial stiffness in women who had HPD and are between 43 days and 10 years postdelivery and under 60 years of age. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Estimates of mean ± SD for arterial stiffness indices (cfPWV, AIx and AIx@75) for the women in the included studies will be obtained. For studies where the estimates were reported as the median and IQR, approximate estimates of mean ± SD will be calculated by using the low and high end of the range, median and sample size. Data from the individual studies will be pooled by use of a random-effects model. The risk of bias assessment will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale as appropriate. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required as only published data will be used in this study. The research study's outcomes will be shared through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023461867.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.020
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.006

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 venueBMJ Open→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→