ArticleAJOG global reports2026
Comparing allostatic load scoring methods and timing: their links to preterm birth outcomes.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allostatic load is a well-recognized indicator of cumulative physiological stress during pregnancy, with scores derived from biomarker algorithms that hold promise for identifying women at risk of preterm birth. However, there is currently no consensus on the most accurate and reliable method for aggregating these biomarkers into a composite allostatic load score, and the comparative predictive performance of various scoring approaches-along with the influence of assessment timing-remains insufficiently explored. Objectives: To compare multiple allostatic load scoring algorithms' ability to predict preterm birth among pregnant women and assess the impact of biomarker assessment timing on these associations. Study Design: This prospective longitudinal cohort study (2018-2020) enrolled 1576 healthy women (10-19 weeks' gestation), reassessed 1140 at 22-29 weeks from four Pakistani antenatal clinics. Six allostatic load biomarkers were measured with seven scoring algorithms applied to derive allostatic load scores. Their associations with preterm birth were assessed using logistic regression, with model comparisons made by Akaike Information Criterion and Area under the Curve. Results: Average allostatic load scores across algorithms ranged from 0.16 to 6.13, with 13.1% of participants experiencing preterm birth. Six of seven allostatic load scoring algorithms-highest quartile, two-sided quartiles, highest decile, extreme z-scores, clinical limits, and extreme sextiles-were significantly associated with preterm birth when assessed in early pregnancy, though associations weakened at 22-29 weeks. Clinical limits scoring showed the strongest association with preterm birth early in pregnancy but lost significance later. Conclusion: The association between allostatic load and preterm birth varies by scoring algorithm and timing, with early clinical limits assessment offering robust prediction. While extreme sextiles, highest quartile and decile algorithms predict preterm birth at 22-29 weeks, they lack standardized cut-offs. Early assessment and allostatic load scoring using clinical limits offers a robust, objective tool to assess risk of preterm birth. Standardizing cut-offs for extreme sextiles and highest quantile could produce allostatic load measures that are less sensitive to timing and can complement clinical thresholds as effective screening tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.