MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110711102

Major malformations with valproic acid.

2006· review· en· W2110711102 on OpenAlexaff
Gideon Koren, Alejandro A. Nava‐Ocampo, Myla E. Moretti, Reuven Sussman, Irena Nulman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValproic AcidNeural tubeMedicineEpilepsyCongenital malformationsPopulationCohortSpina bifidaCohort studyRelative riskPediatricsPregnancyBioinformaticsPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental healthConfidence intervalBiologyEmbryo
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Increasing numbers of pregnant patients are treated with valproic acid, not just for epilepsy, but also for psychiatric conditions. Are there teratogenic risks other than the risk of spina bifida? ANSWER: It has now become evident that valproic acid might cause more than just neural tube defects (NTDs). In a systematic review of all cohort studies intended to answer this question, higher rates of major malformations (and not just NTDs) were found in most studies. The calculated relative risk was 2.59 when compared with other antiepileptic drugs and was 3.77 when compared with risk in the general population. There is compelling evidence that the risk is dose dependent. The risks appear to begin increasing at doses of 600 mg/d and to become more prominent at doses above 1000 mg/d.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations79
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207