MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144464898 · doi:10.1002/pd.3847

Effects of chemotherapy during pregnancy on the maternal and fetal heart

2012· review· en· W2144464898 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Mhallem Gzirí, Frédéric Amant, Frédéric Debiève, Kristel Van Calsteren, Luc De Catte, Luc Mertens

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiotoxicityPregnancyChemotherapyFetusTransplacentalObstetricsCancerInternal medicinePlacenta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The co-occurrence of cancer and pregnancy is more frequently diagnosed. The effects of cancer treatment on maternal and fetal outcomes are less well known. The cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy are a specific concern for the mother and fetus. We wanted to review the existing literature, mainly consisting of case reports, case studies, and retrospective data. RESULTS: Maternal effects Overall, the published data indicate that pregnancy is not an independent risk factor influencing cancer survival. There is no indirect evidence for an increased risk for maternal chemotherapy-related cardiotoxicity. Fetal effects During the first trimester chemotherapy needs to be avoided because of teratogenic risks. The risks of chemotherapy during the second and third trimester are more controversial. It has been associated with intrauterine growth restriction and preterm delivery in some studies, while others did not find the same effect. Cardiotoxic fetal effects have been reported despite the limited transplacental passage of chemotherapy. In most patients this was transient and long-term data are generally reassuring. CONCLUSION: A specific strategy for monitoring fetal and maternal chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity is suggested. Prospective data are needed on the long-term effects of chemotherapy in both mother and child.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207