Survey of antimalarial use in lupus pregnancy and lactation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain the experience of selected experts in the use of antimalarial drugs (AM) in pregnancy and lactation in systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: Seventy-eight lupus experts identified from North America and UK were mailed a 19 question survey regarding their experience using AM in pregnancy and lactation. RESULTS: The 52 (67%) respondents with usable questionnaires treated a median of 75 lupus patients/year, including 4-5 lupus pregnancies/year. Thirty-five (69%) continued AM sometimes, often, or always during pregnancy. Continuing AM increased with the number of pregnant lupus patients seen (p < 0.01). None reported having seen any fetal toxicity with AM use, and pregnancy was never terminated because of AM, other than at patient insistence (n = 1). Postpartum, 29 (63%) continued AM and advised breast-feeding. Responses were consistent among North American and UK experts. CONCLUSION: The majority of lupus experts continue AM during pregnancy. This was particularly true for those who treated a larger number of pregnant lupus patients per year. The majority advise breast-feeding and continue AM postpartum. These practices are supported by the limited literature available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".