In-vitro fertilization, twin pregnancy and HELLP syndrome: A population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) is a rare, severe complication of pregnancy.We compared the rates of HELLP syndrome following in-vitro fertilization (IVF) versus spontaneous conception, stratified by singleton and twin pregnancies. METHODS: All women with singleton or twin live birth or stillbirth in British Columbia, Canada, 2008/09-2020/21, were included; data were obtained from the British Columbia Perinatal Database Registry. Rates of HELLP were compared between IVF and non-IVF groups, stratified by plurality.We used logistic regression to adjust for confounders (e.g., maternal age, smoking, body-mass-index), and to assess the effect modification by plurality. RESULTS: Among 523,867 women, 16,707 (3.2 %) women conceived using IVF. The proportion of twin deliveries was 14.7 % (2,455/16,707) in IVF group, and 1.2 % (5,882/507,160) in spontaneous conception group.In IVF group, the rates of HELLP syndrome in twin vs singleton pregnancies were 2.6% vs 0.6%, respectively; among those who conceived spontaneously, the rates were 2.3% vs 0.3%, respectively.The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for HELLP syndrome associated with IVF was 1.64 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.32 - 2.04) in singleton pregnancies.The association between IVF and HELLP syndrome was absent in twin pregnancies (AOR 0.75; 95% CI 0.55 - 1.02;P < 0.001 for interaction). CONCLUSION: The mode of conception is associated with HELLP syndrome in singleton pregnancies but not in twins. However, in twin pregnancies, the risk of HELLP syndrome is substantially higher than that of singleton pregnancies, regardless of mode of conception. Our results inform preconception counselling and prenatal care for women planningIVF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".