Risk Factors of Marginal Cord Insertion in Singleton Pregnancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Marginal cord insertion (MCI) is increasingly recognized as a pathological variation that necessitates early diagnosis. Identifying the risk factors associated with MCI is essential for improving prenatal screening and optimizing management strategies. Our meta-analysis systematically and quantitatively synthesizes the current evidence on various potential risk factors for MCI. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Comprehensive searches were performed in three databases up until 6 May 2024, identifying observational cohort and case–control studies that examined risk factors for MCI in singleton pregnancies compared with central or eccentric cord insertion. Quality and risk of bias assessment were performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, respectively. Statistical analyses employed random-effects models to calculate relative risks (RR) and mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Heterogeneity was assessed via Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics. Results: A total of 18 studies (14 cohort and 4 case–control), encompassing 51,463 MCI cases and 901,020 control cases, were included. The meta-analysis revealed a prevalence of MCI at 5.71% among singleton pregnancies. Significant risk factors for MCI included the use of assisted reproductive technology (RR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.34–1.78), chronic hypertension (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.11–1.95), placenta previa (RR = 1.83; 95% CI: 1.62–2.08), and nulliparity (RR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.08–1.30). No significant associations were found for smoking, maternal age, prior Cesarean section, preexisting diabetes, or Caucasian ethnicity. Sensitivity analyses corroborated the robustness of these findings. Conclusions: This meta-analysis identified assisted reproductive technology, chronic hypertension, placenta previa, and nulliparity as significant risk factors for marginal cord insertion in singleton pregnancies. These findings can inform the development of prenatal screening protocols and enable targeted screenings for high-risk populations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".