Placenta previa and the risk of respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This meta-analysis is the first to examine the association between placenta previa (PP) and the risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Methods We searched three major electronic databases until 10, February 2023. We utilized a random-effects model to apply the findings, and an assessment of heterogeneity was conducted. For assessing the quality of included studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of 0.05 using Stata software, version 13. Results In total, 8 records were included with 22,645 sample populations from 7 countries. Based on the crude form, the estimated odd ratio (OR) of the risk of RDS associated with PP was (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.85 to 2.96), however, based on adjusted studies there was no association between the risk of RDS with PP (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.13). The analysis revealed low heterogeneity among the reported studies, both in adjusted (I 2 = 16.0%, P = 0.311) and crude forms (I 2 = 23.8%, P = 0.239). Conclusion The findings from our study indicate that PP does not pose an elevated risk of RDS when considering adjusted factors. The analysis revealed low heterogeneity among the reported studies, both in adjusted and crude forms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".