Comparing pyridoxine and doxylamine succinate‐pyridoxine HCl for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: A matched, controlled cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is a common gestational condition. This is the first study to compare the use of vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) versus Diclectin (doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl) for NVP symptoms. Participants were pregnant women with NVP who used either pyridoxine or doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl for ≥4 days prior to calling the Motherisk NVP Helpline. Women receiving pyridoxine only (n = 80) were matched to a woman taking doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl only (n = 80), accounting for potential confounders and baseline level of NVP, measured by the Pregnancy Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score. Change in NVP severity after a week of therapy with either pyridoxine or doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl was quantified using the PUQE-24 scale, which describes NVP symptoms 24 hours prior to their call. Doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl use found a significant reduction in PUQE score, compared with pyridoxine (+0.5 versus -0.2, P < .05; negative denotes worsening). This association was especially prominent in women with more severe symptoms, where doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl use saw a mean improvement of 2.6 versus 0.4 with pyridoxine (P < .05). As well, doxylamine succinate-pyridoxine HCl use was associated with fewer women experiencing moderate to severe scores after a week of treatment, compared with the pyridoxine group (7 versus 17, P < .05), despite similar baseline PUQE 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".