MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121596657

Safety of gadolinium during pregnancy.

2006· article· en· W2121596657 on OpenAlexaff
Facundo García‐Bournissen, Alon Shrim, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadoliniumMedicinePregnancyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyFetusObstetrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: A pregnant patient who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) because of an acute abdomen, was told that MRI contrast agents (ie, gadolinium-based contrast agents) are contraindicated during pregnancy. What is the risk to her baby? ANSWER: Current radiology practices and recommendations discourage the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents during pregnancy because their safety for the fetus has not yet been proven. In line, however, with the European Society of Radiology guidelines and based on the available evidence, gadolinium-based contrast agents appear to be safe in pregnancy. Gadolinium use should be considered when the diagnostic study is important for the health of the mother.

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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations98
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207