Pregnancy outcome of women exposed to azathioprine during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Azathioprine (AZP) interferes with nucleic acid synthesis and is teratogenic in animals. In view of the paucity of information on the use of AZP during pregnancy we investigated this subject in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study. Our objective was too determine whether exposure to AZP during pregnancy increases the risk for major malformations and to determine the effect on pregnancy outcome. METHODS: Pregnant women on AZP who contacted one of seven teratogen information services were compared to a cohort of pregnant women who contacted two of the seven teratogen information services and took nonteratogenic treatments during their pregnancy. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed on 189 women in the AZP group and compared to 230 women in the control group. The rate of major malformations did not differ between groups with six neonates in each; the AZP rate was 3.5% and the control group rate was 3.0% (p = .775; OR 1.17; CI: 0.37, 3.69). The mean birth weight and gestational age were lower in the AZP group (2,995 g vs. 3,252 g [p = .001, difference of mean: 257, 95% CI: 106.3, 408.1] and 37.8 weeks vs. 39.1 weeks [p = .001, difference of mean: 1.3, 95% CI: .5, 2.0], respectively). The AZP group had more cases of prematurity (21.4% vs. 5.2% [p < .001; OR 4.0; 95% CI: 2.0, 8.06]) and low birth weight (23% vs. 6.0% [p < .001; OR 3.81; 95% CI: 2.0, 7.2]). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that AZP (50-100 mg/day) does not triple the rate of birth defects; however, it is associated with lower birth weight, gestational age, and prematurity. Larger studies are needed to confirm these observations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".