Pregnancy outcome in women exposed to leflunomide before or during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Findings from animal studies have suggested that leflunomide may be a human teratogen. In the only human cohort study published to date, an increase in adverse outcomes in pregnancies after exposure to leflunomide was not detected. The aim of the present analysis was to expand on the previously published data with a description of birth outcomes among women who did not meet the previous cohort study criteria but who were exposed to leflunomide either during pregnancy or prior to conception. METHODS: Data on pregnancy exposures and outcomes were collected from 45 pregnant women who had contacted counseling services of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists in the US or Canada between 1999 and 2009. Sixteen women were exposed to leflunomide during the first trimester of pregnancy and 29 women were exposed preconception. RESULTS: All 16 of the pregnancies with leflunomide exposure during pregnancy and 27 (93%) of the pregnancies with exposure prior to conception resulted in liveborn infants. There were 2 infants with major malformations from mothers who were exposed during pregnancy, and no malformations reported in the preconception group. There was a potential known alternative etiology for at least some of the defects observed. CONCLUSION: These data provide additional reassurance to women who inadvertently become pregnant while taking leflunomide and who undergo the washout procedure, as well as women who discontinue the medication prior to conception but have no prepregnancy documentation of drug clearance. However, until more conclusive data become available, women receiving leflunomide should be advised to use contraceptive methods and avoid pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".