MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104419628 · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)34802-2

The Fetal Safety of Hydrocortisone-Pramoxine (Proctofoam-HC) for the Treatment of Hemorrhoids in Late Pregnancy

2011· article· en· W2104419628 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Neda Ebrahimi, S. Vohra, Christelle Gedeon, Hani Akoury, Paul S. Bernstein, Nicholas Pairaudeau, Johanne Cormier, Lorraine Dontigny, Marc-Yvon Arsenault, Claude Fortin, Martine Goyet, Chantal Lafortune, J Lalande, Coralie Beauchamp, Francis Engel, Anne Fortin, Anna Taddio, Tom Einarson, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalNorth York General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersDuchesnay
KeywordsMedicineHemorrhoidsPregnancyFetusObstetricsGestational ageAdverse effectSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Fetal safety has never been studied for any drug used in the treatment of hemorrhoids. Proctofoam-HC is a combination of a corticosteroid and a local anaesthetic that is proven effective for the treatment of hemorrhoids. The objective of this study was to assess prospectively the fetal safety of third trimester exposure to Proctofoam-HC. METHODS: In a multicentre study, 204 [corrected] women exposed to Proctofoam-HC in the third trimester and a similar number of control pregnant women were followed up postnatally. RESULTS: When compared to controls exposure to Proctofoam-HC was not associated with any adverse fetal effects on birth weight, gestational age, rates of prematurity, or pre- or postnatal complications. CONCLUSION: Proctofoam-HC is safe to use in the treatment of hemorrhoids in late 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207