ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
An analytical pipeline for dose-response effect: laboratory tests assessment and early pregnancy preeclampsia risk.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dose-response relationship between early pregnancy blood pressure and gestational diabetes mellitus based on propensity score matching: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have explored the associations between early pregnancy laboratory tests and preeclampsia, leaving rich first-trimester data underutilized. This study introduces a pipeline, integrating Generalized Additive Models with dose-response analysis, to elucidate the complex associations.
methodsOur pipeline includes identifying turning points (pathway A) and risk/protective intervals (pathway B). We used Generalized Additive Models with cubic regression splines. For pathway A, turning points were identified at the second derivative extrema of nonlinear monotonic fitted probability curves. For pathway B, risk/protective intervals were determined where the Odds Ratios equaled 1. Propensity score matching and the risk ratios were used for evaluation. This pipeline was applied to a retrospective GZ cohort of 12,474 pregnancies and evaluated in an external GG cohort.
resultsThrough analyzing 99 unique laboratory tests within GZ cohort, our pipeline highlighted 16 exhibiting optimal turning points via pathway A and 4 showing risk/protective intervals through pathway B. The turning points from pathway A were comparable to those from traditional piecewise logistic regression. Evaluation within GG cohort confirmed the statistical robustness. Additionally, our experiments demonstrated that hyperparameter fine-tuning of Generalized Additive Models fitting had minimal effect, and pathway output metrics are sensitive to pregnancy stages, leading to considerable variability in conclusions.
conclusionsThe proposed pipeline was rigorously validated for its efficacy across two independent cohorts, achieving consistent outcomes. Furthermore, the laboratory tests identified mostly align with conclusions from prior studies. We believe it both advances our understanding of the mechanisms during early pregnancy disorder and offers vital insights for early preeclampsia detection and preventive interventions. TRAIL REGISTRATION: NA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.