Atypical antipsychotic use during the first trimester of pregnancy may not increase major malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McKenna K, Koren G, Tetelbaum M, et al . Pregnancy outcome of women using atypical antipsychotic drugs: A prospective comparative study. J Clin Psychiatry 2005;66:444–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Do antipsychotics negatively affect birth outcomes if taken during pregnancy? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Prospective cohort study. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: Until birth. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: Three drug safety monitoring and advice services (Motherisk Program, Canada; Israeli Teratogen Information Service, Jerusalem, Israel; Drug Safety Research Unit, UK); time period not specified. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>People: 151 pregnant women who took atypical antipsychotics in their first trimester (olanzapine n = 60; risperidone n = 49; quetiapine n = 36; clozapine n = 6). 151 age and gestational stage matched pregnant women not exposed to antipsychotics (controls). Controls were recruited when they contacted the Canadian centre for advice on exposure to non-teratogenic agents. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Risk factors: Taking atypical antipsychotics during the first trimester of pregnancy. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Outcomes: Major malformations in babies; spontaneous or therapeutic abortion; birth weight; premature births (<37 weeks gestation). More women exposed to antipsychotics … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2Bclinical%2Bpsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BClin%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DMcKenna%26rft.auinit1%253DK.%26rft.volume%253D66%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D444%26rft.epage%253D449%26rft.atitle%253DPregnancy%2Boutcome%2Bof%2Bwomen%2Busing%2Batypical%2Bantipsychotic%2Bdrugs%253A%2Ba%2Bprospective%2Bcomparative%2Bstudy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.4088%252FJCP.v66n0406%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15816786%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4088/JCP.v66n0406&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15816786&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F4%2F115.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228491400006&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".