Is lack of morning sickness teratogenic? A prospective controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Case-control studies have suggested that the nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) may have a protective effect against specific malformations. These suggestions have been interpreted as if the lack of NVP may put mothers at an increased teratogenic risk. METHODS: A prospective, cohort-controlled study was done comparing pregnancy outcome in women not experiencing NVP with those experiencing NVP at two levels of clinical severity. Women who called the Motherisk program about first-trimester exposure to drugs and who had not experienced NVP were included as the study group. The NVP Healthline enrolled two control groups of women with NVP treated with a doxylamine-pyridoxine combination for morning sickness. These women were exposed during the first trimester of gestation to either higher than the standard dose (5-12 tablets/day) or a standard dose (1-4 tablets/day) of doxylamine-pyridoxine. The women in all three groups were followed up four to six months after the expected date of birth to ascertain pregnancy outcomes and child health. RESULTS: There were no major malformations among offspring of 130 women not experiencing NVP. There were two major malformations among 246 women experiencing NVP. The two control groups of women with NVP had similar distributions of gestational ages, birth rates, as well as rates of miscarriages and stillbirths, as in the no-NVP group. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show an association between lack of NVP and an increase in the overall rates of major malformations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".