MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406527225 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14003.1

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and the long-term risk of maternal retinal disease: a systematic review protocol

2025· review· en· W4406527225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Barrett, Cian Carey, Angela Ding Wu, Emma Wallace, Matilda Biba, Karolina Kublickiene, Fergus P. McCarthy, Ali S. Khashan

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyDiseaseTerm (time)Protocol (science)Retinal DisorderRetinalPediatricsObstetricsInternal medicineOphthalmologyPathologyAlternative medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p>Background Previous studies have established an association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) (e.g. preeclampsia, gestational hypertension) and maternal cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and cerebrovascular disease. There is relatively little known about the association between HDP and maternal retinal disease, despite many retinal disorders having an underlying vascular aetiology. Existing research which has focused on HDP and future maternal ophthalmic outcomes is scarce, and findings are inconsistent. Objective This systematic review will examine the available evidence on the association between HDP and long-term maternal retinal disease and other forms of ophthalmic disease. Methods and analysis We will include cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in which women had a known diagnosis of HDP (including preeclampsia, gestational hypertension) and where measures of association with maternal retinal disease or other ophthalmic disease were reported after at least 6 months postpartum. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library will be conducted following a detailed search strategy until end of September 2024. Two authors will independently review titles and abstracts of all eligible studies, extract data using pre-defined, standardised data extraction tools, and assess the quality of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We will use random-effects meta-analysis for each exposure-outcome association where possible, and we will calculate overall pooled estimates using the generic inverse variance method. PROSPERO registration CRD42024589508</ns3:p>

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207