Maternal hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and their link to childhood asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The association between Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy (HDP) and childhood asthma remains controversial, with limited systematic synthesis. This study aimed to integrate global observational evidence to evaluate the relationship between HDP [and its subtypes, pre-eclampsia (PE) and gestational hypertension (GH)] and offspring asthma risk, while exploring sources of heterogeneity. Methods: = 9,447,593) were identified via systematic searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect (up to January 2025). Random-effects meta-analysis pooled odds ratios (ORs), with subgroup analyses for HDP subtypes, geographic regions, and offspring age. Quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) for cohorts and AHRQ checklist for cross-sectional studies. Results: < 0.00001). PE was associated with asthma (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.13-1.27), but GH was not (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.99-1.32). Stratified analyses revealed increased risk in European (OR = 1.20) and North American (OR = 1.62) populations, and in infants (0-2 years, OR = 1.27) and school-aged children (7-12 years, OR = 1.22), but not in Asian populations or 2-6-year-olds. Sensitivity analyses confirmed result robustness. Conclusion: HDP (particularly PE) exposure is significantly associated with increased offspring asthma risk, with age- and region-specific heterogeneity. Future multicenter cohorts should validate causality and explore subtype-specific mechanisms and interventions for early asthma prevention. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251052620.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".