MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1859537116 · doi:10.1002/cpt.158

Risks of congenital malformations in offspring exposed to valproic acid <i>in utero</i>: A systematic review and cumulative meta‐analysis

2015· review· en· W1859537116 on OpenAlexaff
M Tanoshima, Tohru Kobayashi, Reo Tanoshima, Joseph Beyene, Gideon Koren, Shinya Ito

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn uteroOffspringValproic AcidMeta-analysisMedicineCongenital malformationsPregnancyObstetricsPhysiologyInternal medicineEpilepsyBiologyFetusGeneticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite extensive research efforts over decades, the teratogenic profile of valproic acid (VPA) remains obscure. We performed cumulative and conventional meta-analyses of cohort studies to determine the time profiles of signal emergence of VPA-associated congenital malformations (CMs) and to define risk estimates of each of the CMs. Fifty-nine studies were identified and analyzed. We found that the significant risk signals began to emerge over the last 10-20 years even before large-scale studies were performed: neural tube defect (the significant risk signal emerged in 1992); genitourinary and musculoskeletal anomalies (2004); cleft lip and/or palate (2005); and congenital heart defects (2006). At present, the risks of VPA-associated CMs are 2-7-fold higher than other common antiepileptic drugs. VPA should not be used as a first-line therapy in women of childbearing age unless it is the only option for the patient.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.017
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.589
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.010 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207