PREGNANCY OUTCOME AFTER CYCLOSPORINE THERAPY DURING PREGNANCY: A META-ANALYSIS1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cyclosporine (CsA) therapy must often be continued during pregnancy to maintain maternal health in such conditions as organ transplantation and autoimmune disease. This meta-analysis was performed to determine whether CsA exposure during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations, preterm delivery, or low birthweight. METHODS: Various health science databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Articles selected for inclusion in the study were required to be free of any apparent selection bias and report outcomes in at least 10 newborns exposed to CsA in utero, specifically commenting on the presence or absence of congenital malformations. Article selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers, with adjudication in cases of disagreement. To assess risks of CsA exposure, a summary odds ratio was calculated. Prevalence of malformations was calculated as a rate for all cyclosporine-exposed live births and for the subgroups identified. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were constructed for both the odds ratio and prevalence rates. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (6 with control groups of transplant without use of cyclosporine; total patients: 410) met the inclusion criteria for major malformations, 10 for preterm delivery (4 with control groups; total patients: 379) and 5 for low birth weight (1 with control groups; total number of patients: 314). The calculated odds ratio of 3.83 for malformations did not achieve statistical significance (CI 0.75-19.6). The overall prevalence of major malformations in the study population (4.1%) also did not vary substantially from that reported in the general population. OR for prematurity [1.52 (CI 1.00-2.32)] did not reach statistical significance although the overall prevalence rate was 56.3%. The OR for low birth weight [1.5 (CI 0.95-2.44 based on 1 study)]. CONCLUSIONS: CsA does not appear to be a major human teratogen. It may be associated with increased rates of prematurity. More research is needed to evaluate whether cyclosporine increases teratogenic risk.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".