Foetal and neonatal outcomes in first‐trimester pregnant women exposed to abdominal or lumbar radiodiagnostic procedures without administration of radionucleotides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Little is known about exposures to low radiation doses in the first trimester of pregnancy and deterministic adverse effects in the offspring, and risks are extrapolated from catastrophic events or from exposures to radiotherapy. The study aimed to assess the foetal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women exposed to radiodiagnostic procedures with abdominal or lumbar irradiation. METHODS: In a prospective cohort design, we studied the foetal and neonatal outcomes in 115 singleton pregnant women who required abdominal or lumbar radiodiagnostic procedures without the administration of radionucleotides, and in 527 age-matched (± 2 years) control pregnant women. RESULTS: In the exposed group, lumbar spine radiography (33.9%), plain abdominal radiography (16.5%) and upper gastrointestinal tract radiography with abdominal irradiation (15.7%) were the most common radiodiagnostic procedures. Major congenital malformations were identified in two (1.9%) babies born in the exposed group and in two (0.4%) babies born in the control group (odds ratio = 4.7; 95% confidence interval 0.7-33.6; P = 0.15). The rest of the foetal and neonatal outcomes was similar in the two groups except by a marginally higher rate of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit among babies born to exposed women (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval 1.0-9.4; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that X-ray and computed tomography scan exposure involving abdominal irradiation without the administration of radionucleotides is not associated with adverse foetal and neonatal deterministic outcomes. Efforts are required to reduce the use of radiodiagnostic procedures for general check-ups in childbearing age women.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".