MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410188516 · doi:10.1177/1753495x251338746

Acute fatty liver in pregnancy presenting in the second trimester: A systematic literature review

2025· review· en· W4410188516 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Bourque, Michèle Mahone

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute fatty liver of pregnancyMedicinePregnancyEncephalopathyObstetricsLiver biopsyHELLP syndromeFetusGestationBiopsyPediatricsAsphyxiaInternal medicineEclampsia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: We present clinical features and outcomes of second-trimester acute fatty liver of pregnancy (AFLP), a serious but rare condition. Results: Fourteen pregnant women with AFLP or compatible biopsy were identified in the literature. Diagnosis occurred between 20 and 27 + 6 weeks of gestational age. In total, 50% were primigravid. Thirteen cases met the Swansea criteria while the other case had a compatible liver biopsy. In total, 10 out of 11 cases had microvesicular steatosis on their liver biopsy. Common maternal complications included acute renal failure, hypoglycaemia, liver failure, encephalopathy, intensive care unit admission and need for blood transfusions. Seven deliveries were on the day of diagnosis, five within four weeks, and two within three months. One maternal death, seven fetal deaths and three neonatal deaths occurred. Conclusion: AFLP diagnosed in the second trimester is a rare condition. Neonatal mortality and maternal morbidity are high. Most cases had nonspecific symptoms and clinical findings, but a majority had compatible biopsies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 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 venueObstetric MedicineSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207