Effect of magnesium sulfate and nifedipine on the risk of developing pulmonary edema in preterm births
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of developing pulmonary edema in women exposed to nifedipine, magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), or both in a preterm setting. STUDY DESIGN: We carried out a retrospective case-control study at a large tertiary care center from 2007 to 2012. Cases of pulmonary edema were age, and gestational age matched to controls at a ratio of 1 case to 4 controls. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of nifedipine and/or MgSO4 on the development of pulmonary edema while controlling for predetermined confounding variables. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate additional risk factors of pulmonary edema. RESULTS: A total of 150 charts were reviewed (28 cases and 122 controls). Nifedipine did not increase the odds of developing pulmonary edema [adjusted odds ratio (OR)=1.22 (confidence interval (CI) 0.50, 3.01), P=0.67], whereas exposure to MgSO4, or both MgSO4 and nifedipine, significantly increased the risk of developing pulmonary edema [adjusted OR=3.91 (CI 1.44, 10.65), P=0.008 and adjusted OR=4.75 (CI 1.15, 19.71), P=0.032, respectively]. In the stratified analysis, this association persisted even in nonpreeclamptic women [nifedipine: adjusted OR=0.91 (CI 0.33, 2.52), P=0.852; MgSO4: adjusted OR=3.51 (CI 1.26, 9.76), P=0.016; both: adjusted OR=3.39 (0.76, 15.07), P=0.108]. Other independent risk factors for pulmonary edema were multi-fetal pregnancy, azithromycin, and erythromycin administration. CONCLUSION: MgSO4 treatment is strongly associated with the development of pulmonary edema when used either as a tocolytic agent or for seizure prophylaxis. In light of the availability of safer alternatives, MgSO4 should be used for tocolysis only in cases whereby the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".