Use of inhaled corticosteroids during pregnancy and risk of pregnancy induced hypertension: nested case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of inhaled corticosteroids during pregnancy increases the risk of pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia among asthmatic women. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Three administrative health databases from Quebec: RAMQ, MED-ECHO, and Fichier des evenements demographiques. PARTICIPANTS: 3505 women with asthma, totalling 4593 pregnancies, between 1990 and 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. RESULTS: 302 cases of pregnancy induced hypertension and 165 cases of pre-eclampsia were identified. Use of inhaled corticosteroids from conception until date of outcome was not associated with an increased risk of pregnancy induced hypertension (adjusted odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.34) or pre-eclampsia (1.06, 0.74 to 1.53). No significant dose-response relation was observed between inhaled corticosteroids and pregnancy induced hypertension or pre-eclampsia. Oral corticosteroids were significantly associated with the risk of pregnancy induced hypertension (adjusted odds ratio 1.57, 1.02 to 2.41), and a trend was seen for pre-eclampsia (1.72, 0.98 to 3.02). CONCLUSION: No significant increase of the risk of pregnancy induced hypertension or pre-eclampsia was detected among users of inhaled corticosteroids during pregnancy, while markers of uncontrolled and severe asthma were found to significantly increase the risks of pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".