MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920517156 · doi:10.60692/ryt85-bm902

Blood pressure thresholds in pregnancy for identifying maternal and infant risk: a secondary analysis of Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trial data

2021· article· en· W6920517156 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesProvidence Health Care Research InstituteSickKids FoundationBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressurePrehypertensionPregnancyAdverse effectPsychological interventionClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundBlood pressure measurement is a marker of antenatal care quality. In well resourced settings, lower blood pressure cutoffs for hypertension are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We aimed to study the associations between blood pressure thresholds and adverse outcomes and the diagnostic test properties of these blood pressure cutoffs in low-resource settings.MethodsWe did a secondary analysis of data from 22 intervention clusters in the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) cluster randomised trials (NCT01911494) in India (n=6), Mozambique (n=6), and Pakistan (n=10). We included pregnant women aged 15–49 years (12–49 years in Mozambique), identified in their community by trained community health workers, who had data on blood pressure measurements and outcomes. The trial was unmasked. Maximum blood pressure was categorised as: normal blood pressure (systolic blood pressure [sBP] <120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [dBP] <80 mm Hg), elevated blood pressure (sBP 120–129 mm Hg and dBP <80 mm Hg), stage 1 hypertension (sBP 130–139 mm Hg or dBP 80–89 mm Hg, or both), non-severe stage 2 hypertension (sBP 140–159 mm Hg or dBP 90–109 mm Hg, or both), or severe stage 2 hypertension (sBP ≥160 mm Hg or dBP ≥110 mm Hg, or both). We classified women according to the maximum blood pressure category reached across all visits for the primary analyses. The primary outcome was a maternal, fetal, or neonatal mortality or morbidity composite. We estimated dose-response relationships between blood pressure category and adverse outcomes, as well as diagnostic test properties.FindingsBetween Nov 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2017, 21 069 women (6067 in India, 4163 in Mozambique, and 10 839 in Pakistan) contributed 103 679 blood pressure measurements across the three CLIP trials. Only women with non-severe or severe stage 2 hypertension, as discrete diagnostic categories, experienced more adverse outcomes than women with normal blood pressure (risk ratios 1·29–5·88). Using blood pressure categories as diagnostic thresholds (women with blood pressure within the category or any higher category vs those with blood pressure in any lower category), dose-response relationships were observed between increasing thresholds and adverse outcomes, but likelihood ratios were informative only for severe stage 2 hypertension and maternal CNS events (likelihood ratio 6·36 [95% CI 3·65–11·07]) and perinatal death (5·07 [3·64–7·07]), particularly stillbirth (8·53 [5·63–12·92]).InterpretationIn low-resource settings, neither elevated blood pressure nor stage 1 hypertension were associated with maternal, fetal, or neonatal mortality or morbidity adverse composite outcomes. Only the threshold for severe stage 2 hypertension met diagnostic test performance standards. Current diagnostic thresholds for hypertension in pregnancy should be retained.FundingUniversity of British Columbia, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→