Pregnancy Outcome of Women Using Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A substantial number of women of childbearing age suffer from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses that require the use of antipsychotic drugs. Atypical antipsychotics have been on the market since the mid-1990s, and to date there are no prospective comparative studies regarding use during pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine whether atypical antipsychotics increase the rate of major malformations above the 1% to 3% baseline risk seen in the general population. (2) To examine rates of spontaneous and therapeutic abortions, rates of stillbirths, birth weight, and gestational age at birth. METHOD: The cohort was composed of pregnant women who contacted the Motherisk Program in Canada or the Israeli Teratogen Information Service in Israel and women who were recruited from the Drug Safety Research Unit database in England. Women who had been exposed to atypical antipsychotics were matched to a comparison group of pregnant women who had not been exposed to these agents. RESULTS: Data were obtained on 151 pregnancy outcomes that included exposure to olanzapine (N= 60), risperidone (N = 49), quetiapine (N = 36), and clozapine (N = 6). Among women exposed to an atypical antipsychotic, there were 110 live births (72.8%), 22 spontaneous abortions (14.5%), 15 therapeutic abortions (9.9%), and 4 stillbirths (2.6%). Among babies of women in this group, there was 1 major malformation (0.9%), and the mean +/-SD birth weight was 3341 +/-685 g. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the pregnancy outcomes of interest between the exposed and comparison groups, with the exceptions of the rate of low birth weight, which was 10% in exposed babies compared with 2% in the comparison group (p = .05), and the rate of therapeutic abortions (p = .003). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that atypical antipsychotics do not appear to be associated with an increased risk for major malformations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".