MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412839062 · doi:10.1111/aogs.70025

<scp>COVID</scp>‐19 vaccination around the time of conception and risk of placenta‐mediated adverse pregnancy outcomes

2025· article· en· W4412839062 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Annette K. Regan, Liam Bruce, Carolina Lavín Venegas, É Török, Robert W. Platt, Christopher A. Gravel, Gillian D. Alton, Sheryll Dimanlig‐Cruz, Prakesh S. Shah, Jon Barrett, Mark Walker, Darine El‐Chaâr, Kumanan Wilson, Ann E. Sprague, Sarah A. Buchan, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Sarah E. Wilson, Siri E. Håberg, Nanette Okun, Tavleen Dhinsa, Sandra Dunn, Deshayne B. Fell

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioBruyèreOttawa HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOntario Stroke Network
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNorges ForskningsrådNordForskPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObstetricsPreeclampsiaHazard ratioSmall for gestational agePlacental abruptionGestationPopulationGestational ageConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although numerous studies have documented no association between COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and maternal and fetal health outcomes, fewer studies have evaluated fetal health effects after COVID-19 vaccination around the time of conception and early pregnancy, a time when maternal exposures may affect early placentation and the subsequent risk of placenta-mediated adverse pregnancy outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used province-wide databases in Ontario to conduct a population-based cohort study including all live and stillbirths ≥20 weeks' gestation with a last menstrual period (LMP) between April 1 and December 31, 2021. We deterministically linked birth registry data to the vaccine registry for all 80 253 eligible pregnancies; 31 209 (38.9%) received ≥1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine around the time of conception or first trimester. Using Cox regression, we estimated propensity score weighted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between ≥1 dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during the periconceptional/first trimester exposure window (28 days before the LMP to the end of first trimester) and study outcomes: hypertensive disorders (gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia), placental abruption, preterm birth (<37 weeks), small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth (<10th percentile), and stillbirth. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccination around the time of conception or first trimester was associated with a small increased risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in exposed versus unexposed individuals (7.4% vs. 6.1%; aHR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.17), mostly attributed to gestational hypertension (5.0% vs. 4.1%; aHR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.22). There was no increased risk of preeclampsia (1.8% vs. 1.5%; aHR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.95-1.22), eclampsia (0.1% vs. 0.1%; aHR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.95), placental abruption (0.8% vs. 1.0%; aHR: 0.77, 95%CI: 0.65-0.91), preterm birth (8.0% vs. 8.9%; aHR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.87-0.97), SGA birth (8.9% vs. 9.3%; aHR: 1.00, 95%CI: 0.95-1.06), or stillbirth (0.4% vs. 0.6%; aHR: 0.66, 95%CI: 0.52-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based Canadian study provides additional evidence evaluating COVID-19 vaccine administration around the start of pregnancy. While we identified no association with most placenta-mediated outcomes, we report a slight increase in the rate of gestational hypertension. This could be a true association or attributed to residual confounding. Further research is needed to verify.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207