Systematic review and meta‐analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes with different types of adenomyosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different types of adenomyosis have distinct impacts on various pregnancy outcomes. The influence of diffuse and focal adenomyosis on adverse pregnancy outcomes remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of diffuse and focal adenomyosis on adverse pregnancy outcomes in women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted searches on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database for studies published between January 1950 and June 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included observational studies that identified medically confirmed adverse pregnancy outcomes (preterm birth, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and fetal growth restriction) as endpoints. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently screened and selected pertinent studies. The methodological quality of these selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Case-control and Cohort studies. Data analysis was primarily performed using Stata software. Dichotomous data for all adverse pregnancy outcomes were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and synthesized in a meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Five studies (involving 390 women with diffuse adenomyosis and 233 women with focal adenomyosis) were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis indicated that diffuse adenomyosis was significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.73-3.88; P < 0.001). Women with diffuse adenomyosis had higher odds of experiencing preterm birth(OR1.66, 95% CI1.03-2.67, P = 0.038) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.32-3.77; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Women with diffuse adenomyosis are more likely to experience preterm birth and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with those with focal adenomyosis.
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 | 0.019 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".