Drug Labeling and Risk Perceptions of Teratogenicity: A Survey of Pregnant Canadian Women and Their Health Professionals
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a general perception that medicinal drugs are not safe in pregnancy despite the fact that fewer than 30 drugs have been shown to cause major malformations in humans. A large number of women need medications in pregnancy to treat pregnancy-induced conditions, acute illnesses, and chronic diseases. The objectives of this study were the following: (1) to characterize the perception of teratogenic risk by pregnant women and their partners and by health professionals and (2) to examine the most reassuring way to present data on a drug for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that has been proven to be safe to the fetus. A convenience sample of pregnant Canadian women and their partners, pharmacists, nurses, physicians, and hospital workers were asked to choose the "safest" among four drugs by statements describing their safety. Although the text of all four was similar, the title and narrative were modified to be more or less "reassuring" by the use of more or less terms such as malformations and abnormalities. Health professionals rated the teratogenic risk significantly lower than the parents, but even they rated the drugs as not safe, despite a scientifically reassuring text. Sixty percent of the 240 participants, regardless of their perception of teratogenic risk, believed the four drugs were of similar risks. However, in the other 40%, the less "reassuring" text led to higher teratogenic perception, and the more reassuring options tended to decrease the false perception of teratogenic risk. It was concluded that in general, four different versions of reassuring text describing a scientifically proven safe drug in pregnancy did not lead expecting parents to believe they were safe. Among those who did not rank the four drugs as having equal safety/risk, the less "reassuring" text led to a higher perception of teratogenic risk. Even health professionals reading the labels describing safe drugs rated them as unsafe. Presently, the perception of teratogenic risk is strong even for safe drugs and is difficult to change even with evidence-based facts.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it