Adverse Neonatal Outcomes in Pregnant Women with Severe Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of negative effect for newborns born to expectant mothers with severe vomiting in terms of birth weight, premature delivery, low Apgar score, and NICU hospitalization. Methods: We conducted a systematically search for relevant studies on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases, using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate research quality, and RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis from 2009 to 2022. The main outcome measures were: Low-birth weight, preterm delivery, low Apgar score and growth restriction. Results: In 9 studies, the risk of Low birth weight in hyperemesis pregnant women was increased, and the random effect model was OR 2.38 (95% CI 0.43 to 13.13). The heterogeneity of the study was high (I2=100%). Four studies showed an increased risk of low Apgar scores, with an OR of 2.69 (95% CI 0.30 to 24.48), and high heterogeneity (I2=95%). The risk of premature birth in 5 papers is equivalent, with an OR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.22) and low heterogeneity (I2=6%). The risk of growth restriction was higher in 7 papers, with an OR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.85) and lower heterogeneity (I2=29%). Subgroup analysis showed that heterogeneity mainly stemmed from differences in the definition of hyperemesis. Conclusion: Pregnant women with severe vomiting have a higher risk of giving birth to babies with low birth weight and low Apgar scores, and a higher risk of giving birth to babies with growth restriction, but the risk of premature birth is comparable
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".