MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1886162754 · doi:10.1002/pds.2184

Prescription drug use during pregnancy in developed countries: a systematic review

2011· review· en· W1886162754 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionPregnancyPharmacoepidemiologyDrugHarmFamily medicineDeveloped countrySystematic reviewAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPrescription drugMEDLINEPediatricsPopulationPsychiatryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review the literature describing patterns of outpatient prescription drug use during pregnancy by therapeutic category, potential for fetal harm, and overall. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from 1989 to 2010. We included studies evaluating individual-level exposures to prescription medicines during pregnancy. We selected only studies conducted in developed (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and published in English. RESULTS: Published drug utilization studies reveal wide variation in estimates of overall prescription drug use in pregnancy (27-93% of pregnant women filling at least one prescription excluding vitamins and minerals). Among studies of similar design, estimates were lowest in Northern European countries (44-47%) and highest in France (93%) and Germany (85%). Measured rates of use of contraindicated medicines in pregnancy ranged from 0.9% (Denmark, 1991-1996) to 4.6% (USA, 1996-2000). The use of medicines with positive evidence of risk ranged from 2.0% (Italy, 2004) to 59.3% (France, 1996). CONCLUSION: Avoidable inconsistencies in study design and reporting attenuate conclusions that can be drawn from the literature on antenatal drug utilization. Nevertheless, the body of published research shows that antenatal prescription drug use is common, with many studies finding that a majority of women use one or more prescription medicine during pregnancy. Similarly, studies consistently report the use of drugs recognized as having potential risks in pregnancy. Given this widespread use, it is particularly important to develop standards for calculating and reporting antenatal exposures to improve the value of future research in this area.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.297 · 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