MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk of congenital anomalies in pregnant users of statin drugs

2007· article· en· W2007060398 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyStatinPopulationFibrateIncidence (geometry)ObstetricsMedical prescriptionPharmacoepidemiologyPediatricsInternal medicinePharmacologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is already known about this subject • Cholesterol is known to be essential for fetal development. • Statins, which inhibit cholesterol production, have therefore been considered as potential teratogens and are contraindicated in pregnancy. • Data available thus far on the risks of congenital anomalies associated with statin therapy have come from non‐analytic postmarketing surveillance studies. • Given the increasing use of statins in women of childbearing age, there is a need for a population‐based study on the risks of congenital anomalies associated with gestational statin use. What this study adds • In this pharmacoepidemiological study, we determined the risk of congenital anomalies in women who filled prescriptions for statins during the first trimester of pregnancy, compared with women who had stopped statins before pregnancy or those who used fibrates during pregnancy. • We found no evidence of an increased risk of fetal anomalies among first‐trimester statin users, or any discernable pattern of congenital anomalies among live births. • However, in the absence of outcome data on nonlive births, conclusions remain uncertain. Aims Evidence from animal studies suggests that statin medications should not be taken during pregnancy. Our aim was to examine the association between the use of statins in early pregnancy and the incidence of congenital anomalies. Methods A population‐based pregnancy registry was built. Three study groups were assembled: women prescribed statins in the first trimester (group A), fibrate/nicotinic acid in the first trimester (group B) and statins between 1 year and 1 month before conception, but not during pregnancy (group C). Among live‐born infants, we selected as cases infants with any congenital anomaly diagnosed in the first year of life. Controls were defined as infants with no congenital anomalies. The rate of congenital anomalies in the respective groups was calculated. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also calculated. Results Our study group consisted of 288 pregnant women. Among women with a live birth, the rate of congenital anomalies was 3/64 (4.69%; 95% CI 1.00, 13.69) in group A, 3/14 in group B (21.43%; 95% CI 4.41, 62.57) and 7/67 in group C (10.45%; 95% CI 4.19, 21.53). The adjusted OR for congenital anomalies in group A compared with group C was 0.36 (95% CI 0.06, 2.18). Conclusion We did not detect a pattern in fetal congenital anomalies or evidence of an increased risk in the live‐born infants of women filling prescriptions for statins in the first trimester of pregnancy. Conclusions, however, remain uncertain in the absence of data from nonlive births.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.362 · 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