MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407766770 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2025.101654

Maternal blood lipoprotein cholesterol prior to and at the time of diagnosis of preeclampsia: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4407766770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sally Yang, Wei Zhou, Evdokia Dimitriadis, Ellen Menkhorst

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilState Government of Victoria
KeywordsPreeclampsiaMedicineCholesterolLipoprotein(a)LipoproteinObstetricsInternal medicinePregnancyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Wide-spread endothelial dysfunction is thought to underlie the maternal symptoms of preeclampsia. Endothelial dysfunction is strongly associated with abnormal circulating lipoprotein cholesterol levels. This systematic review aimed to assess whether maternal circulating high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were altered before or at the time of preeclampsia diagnosis. This may provide an understanding of the pathogenesis of preeclampsia and the predictive and diagnostic utility of lipoprotein cholesterol levels in distinguishing pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia from normal pregnancies. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Google Scholar from inception to April 2024 for studies reporting high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein levels in normal pregnancies and pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The selected studies included the following: population of pregnant women, exposure to preeclampsia, blood samples collected during a specific trimester of pregnancy, and at least 1 primary outcome (high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, or very-low-density lipoprotein). Of note, 2 reviewers were involved in the study selection. The excluded studies included pregnancies complicated by other risk factors for preeclampsia (eg, preexisting hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity) and other pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders (pregnancy-induced hypertension, eclampsia, and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count). METHODS: The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were included. The quality of the studies was generally good. However, 59% of the studies did not control for the gestational age at which the blood samples were collected. No consistent change in high-density lipoprotein or low-density lipoprotein levels was found before preeclampsia diagnosis in the first, second, or third trimesters of pregnancy. Very-low-density lipoprotein was significantly elevated in 2 of 2 studies that reported levels before preeclampsia diagnosis in the late second (>23 weeks of gestation) or third trimester of pregnancy. After preeclampsia diagnosis in the third trimester of pregnancy, very-low-density lipoprotein levels were significantly elevated in 9 of 11 studies, and high-density lipoprotein levels were significantly decreased in 15 of 19 studies. CONCLUSION: Very-low-density lipoprotein is highly atherogenic, and its elevation before and at the time of preeclampsia diagnosis suggests a role in the pathogenesis of the endothelial dysfunction associated with preeclampsia. Both very-low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein show promise as prospective (very-low-density lipoprotein-only) diagnostic biomarkers for preeclampsia. El resumen está disponible en Español al final del artículo.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207