MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975617396 · doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0149

Glucosamine Use in Pregnancy: An Evaluation of Pregnancy Outcome

2007· article· en· W1975617396 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Sivojelezova, Gideon Koren, Adrienne Einarson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Women s Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObstetricsAbortionTherapeutic abortionBirth weightGestational ageLow birth weightAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine (GLS) is an endogenous aminomonosaccharide. It is used as a disease-modifying agent for the treatment of osteoarthritis. There is no information regarding its use in pregnancy. Our objective was to determine whether GLS treatment in pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of major malformations or other adverse outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women were recruited from The Motherisk Program at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. Women exposed to GLS were compared with women exposed to nonteratogenic agents. They were matched for gestational age at time of call, maternal age, and cigarette and alcohol consumption. Rates of major malformations and other end points of interest were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We were able to ascertain the outcomes of 54 women who used GLS during pregnancy (34 during organogenesis). There were 50 live births (two sets of twins), 4 spontaneous abortions, 1 therapeutic abortion, and 1 stillbirth, with no major malformations. The mean birth weight was 3524 +/- 482 g, and the median gestational age at birth was 39 weeks (range 37-40). CONCLUSIONS: These limited data suggest no increased risk for major malformations or other adverse fetal effects following the use of GLS during pregnancy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Women s HealthSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207