Are statins teratogenic in humans? Addressing the safety of statins in light of potential benefits during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are increasingly being prescribed. Their safety during pregnancy has not been determined. Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy based on the overarching concept that their benefits do not outweigh potential fetal risks of exposure. The role of cholesterol during gestation, combined with teratogenic effects seen in animal testing of lovastatin has supported this contraindication. However, statins have become exceedingly popular, women are delaying pregnancy, and obesity and subsequent cardiovascular risk has increased. The time off of therapy may have detrimental effects to both the fetus and mother. Additionally, statins have been shown to have benefits not related to cholesterol lowering effects, known as pleiotropic effects. These indications may support use during pregnancy for obstetrical complications. This article will systematically review statin safety during pregnancy. Included, we present a meta-analysis of controlled studies in an attempt to provide objective assessment regarding the effects of statins in 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".