Pregnancy outcome after exposure to oral contraceptives during the periconceptional period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate whether periconceptional exposure to oral contraceptives (OCs) increased adverse pregnancy outcomes, 136 pregnant women taking OCs within the periconceptional period were identified at the Korean Motherisk Program. Of them, 120 pregnant women accepted to participate in their study and were followed up until completion of the pregnancy. A control group of 240 age- and gravidity-matched pregnant women exposed to non-teratogen drugs for at least 1 month before pregnancy was also included. The median gestational age at delivery was 39.1 (27.0-41.0) weeks in the exposed group and 39.3 (27.4-42.0) weeks in the control group (P = 0.19). In the exposed group, 7.1% of babies were born with low birth weight versus 2.6% in the control group (P = 0.068). The number of preterm deliveries or babies born large for gestational age did not differ between the two groups. In the exposed group, the rate of birth defects was 3.2% (n = 3/99) versus 3.6% (n = 7/193) in the control group (P = 1.0). There were 15 women who took high doses of progesterone (emergency contraception) and no adverse fetal outcomes were observed. In conclusion, periconceptional exposure to OCs does not appear to increase the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".