MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414990702 · doi:10.1097/og9.0000000000000117

Association Between Gestational Weight Gain and Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury

2025· article· en· W4414990702 on OpenAlexafffund
Sahar Khademioore, Sara Khademioureh, Ahmad Sofi‐Mahmudi, Roxana Geoffrion, Rohan D’Souza, Giulia M. Muraca

Bibliographic record

VenueO&G Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWeight gainUnderweightAnal sphincterGuidelineGestationBirth weightSphincter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between gestational weight gain across all prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) categories and the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury during vaginal birth. METHODS: Our retrospective population-based cohort study included individuals with singleton, term, vaginal births in the United States (2021-2023) and used data from the National Vital Statistics System's natality files. We examined the association between gestational weight gain (below, within, or above Institute of Medicine guidelines) and obstetric anal sphincter injury across BMI categories using logistic regression models. We assessed nonlinear associations between gestational weight gain and obstetric anal sphincter injury using restricted cubic spline regression and conducted a mediation analysis to examine the influence of fetal birth weight. RESULTS: Obstetric anal sphincter injury occurred in 1.2% of births, with rates of 1.3% among those who gained above the recommendations, 1.2% among those who gained within the recommendations, and 1.0% among those who gained below the recommendations. Gestational weight gain above and within guideline recommendations were associated with increased odds of obstetric anal sphincter injury among individuals with average-weight (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10), overweight (aOR 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.17), class I obesity (aOR 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.18), and class II obesity (aOR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26) BMIs. Gestational weight gain below and within recommendations showed a protective effect against obstetric anal sphincter injury only in individuals with average-weight BMIs (aOR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93). Mediation analyses showed that gestational weight gain indirectly affected obstetric anal sphincter injury risk through birth weight across all BMI groups; direct effects were observed only in individuals with underweight, average-weight, and overweight BMIs. CONCLUSION: Gestational weight gain above the Institute of Medicine guideline was associated with increased risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury across all BMI categories except for underweight and class III obesity; weight gain below the guideline appeared to be protective only at average weight. These associations were largely mediated through birth weight.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.309
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueO&G OpenSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207