Induced Abortions in Women With Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Methotrexate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of induced abortions in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exposed to methotrexate (MTX) compared with women with RA unexposed to this medication. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study using administrative databases from Quebec. All women with RA ages 15-45 years were identified and cases were defined as women having an induced abortion. Each case was matched to ≥1 controls for age, calendar time, and cohort entry. Exposure was defined as having filled ≥1 prescriptions of MTX ≤16 weeks prior to the index date. RESULTS: We identified 112 cases of induced abortions in women with RA and 5,855 RA controls. Exposure to MTX occurred in 10.7% of cases and 21.7% of controls. Women exposed to MTX had a lower rate of induced abortions compared with unexposed women (rate ratio [RR] 0.47 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.89]). In the multivariate analysis, there was a trend toward an increased rate of induced abortions among women exposed to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents (RR 2.07 [95% CI 0.81-5.27]). CONCLUSION: Women with RA exposed to MTX have a lower rate of induced abortions than unexposed women. Women with RA exposed to anti-TNF agents may have an increased rate of induced abortions compared to unexposed 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".