MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057686207 · doi:10.1177/0091270009350483

The Safety of H<sub>2</sub>‐Blockers Use During Pregnancy

2009· article· en· W2057686207 on OpenAlexaff
Ilan Matok, Rafael Gorodischer, Gideon Koren, Eyal Sheiner, Arnon Wiznitzer, Elia Uziel, Amalia Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyOdds ratioConfidence intervalApgar scoreObstetricsConfoundingPediatricsBirth weightInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little data exist on the safety of H(2)-blockers during pregnancy. A computerized database of medications dispensed from 1998 to 2007 to all women registered in the "Clalit" health maintenance organization, in the Southern District of Israel, was linked with computerized databases containing maternal and infant hospitalization records from the district hospital. The following confounders were controlled for: parity, maternal age, ethnic group, maternal diabetes, smoking, and peripartum fever. Also, therapeutic pregnancy termination data were analyzed. A total of 117 960 infants were born during the study period, 84 823 of them (72%) to women registered at Clalit; 1148 of the latter were exposed to H(2)-blockers during the first trimester of pregnancy. Exposure to H(2)-blockers was not associated with an increased risk for congenital malformations (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.32); also, no such association was found when therapeutic pregnancy terminations were included in the analysis (adjusted OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.93-1.46). Exposure to H(2)-blockers was not associated with perinatal mortality, premature delivery, low birth weight, or low Apgar scores.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207