Use of Decongestants During Pregnancy and the Risk of Birth Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies suggested that early pregnancy exposure to specific oral decongestants increases the risks of several birth defects. Using January 1993-January 2010 data from the Slone Epidemiology Center Birth Defects Study, we tested those hypotheses among 12,734 infants with malformations (cases) and 7,606 nonmalformed control infants in the United States and Canada. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for specific birth defects, with controlling for potential confounders. Findings did not replicate several hypotheses but did support 3 previously reported associations: phenylephrine and endocardial cushion defect (odds ratio = 8.0; 95% confidence interval: 2.5, 25.3; 4 exposed cases), phenylpropanolamine and ear defects (odds ratio = 7.8; 95% confidence interval: 2.2, 27.2; 4 exposed cases), and phenylpropanolamine and pyloric stenosis (odds ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 8.8; 6 exposed cases). Hypothesis-generating analyses involving multiple comparisons identified a small number of associations with oral and intranasal decongestants. Accumulating evidence supports associations between first-trimester use of specific oral and possibly intranasal decongestants and the risk of some infrequent specific birth defects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".