Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We are writing to express our concerns about some of the conclusions made by Wogelius1 and colleagues in their recent paper. Currently, there is a considerable amount of conflicting information about the safety of antidepressants in pregnancy, causing women and their health-care providers difficulty in making an evidence-based decision as to whether or not to treat depression with pharmacotherapy. Since studies finding increased risk tend to receive more media attention,2 it is particularly important that they be rigorously conducted and the findings and conclusions carefully analyzed and presented. We feel that the authors overstepped the limitations of the study methodology with some of their conclusions for the following reasons: 1) There was no pattern of specific defects, and this lack of specificity is generally considered an indication that teratogenicity is an unlikely explanation. 2) There was no separation of major versus minor congenital anomalies, and minor anomalies, by definition, cause no functional impairment.3 This distinction is of the utmost clinical importance, and omitting it from the analyses markedly limits the clinical usefulness of the study's data. 3) As this was a prescription-events monitoring study, it was not known whether the medications were actually taken by the women. 4) Psychiatrically-ill patients frequently use other psychotropic medications, alcohol and illicit drugs, and these potential confounders were not addressed in this study. 5) Finally, there was no control for maternal illness. This is of great importance because exposure of a fetus to antenatal maternal depression, stress or anxiety may have direct adverse effects on the offspring.4 Major depression when untreated may result in dangerous self-neglect, with disorganized thoughts and behavior. This is particularly worrying during pregnancy, for it may result in smaller babies, preterm labor, and other obstetrical difficulties.5 Vivien Burt The Women's Life Center of The Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human BehaviourGeffen School of Medicine at UCLALos Angeles, CA Laura Miller Department of Psychiatry University of Illinois Chicago, IL Adrienne Einarson The Motherisk Program The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, Canada [email protected]
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".