Duration of antidepressant use during pregnancy and risk of major congenital malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antidepressant use during the gestational period is a controversial topic. AIMS: To determine whether duration of antidepressant use during the first trimester increases the risk of major congenital malformations in offspring of women diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. METHOD: A case-control study was performed among women who had been pregnant between January 1998 and December 2002. Data were obtained from a Medication and Pregnancy registry, built by linking three databases from the province of Quebec, and a self-administered questionnaire. Women eligible for this study had to be 15-45 years old at the beginning of pregnancy, have at least one diagnosis of psychiatric disorder before pregnancy, have used antidepressants for > or =30 days in the year prior to pregnancy and have a pregnancy ending with a delivery. Cases were defined as any major congenital malformation diagnosed in the offspring's first year of life. Odds ratios, adjusted for relevant confounders, were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 2329 women meeting the inclusion criteria, 189 (8.1%) infants were born with a major congenital malformation. Duration of antidepressant use during the first trimester of pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations: 1-30 days v. 0 day, adjusted OR=1.23 (95% CI 0.77-1.98); 31-60 days v. 0 day, adjusted OR=1.03 (95% CI 0.63-1.69); > or =61 days v. 0 day, adjusted OR=0.92 (95% CI 0.50-1.69). CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support an association between duration of antidepressant use during the first trimester of pregnancy and major congenital malformations in the offspring of women with psychiatric disorders. These findings should help clinicians decide whether to continue antidepressant therapy during pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".