International practices in the provision of teratology information: a survey of international teratogen information programmes and comparisons with the North American model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Teratology Information Services (TIS) provide health care professionals and the public with information regarding the safety and/or risk of exposures during pregnancy and lactation, mainly via telephone consultations. An international comparison of clinical practices at TIS has never been conducted. The survey objective was to compare international TIS to North American TIS, with an aim to identify strengths and challenges that can lead to service improvement. METHODS: Twenty-two international TIS were approached for participation during an international conference. TIS were surveyed on information in six categories: services, staffing, operations, data collection, knowledge transfer activities and additional information. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Statistical tests were conducted using SPSS®. RESULTS: Sixteen TIS from 12 countries participated. Survey results were compared with previously reported results from a similar survey of North American TIS (16 US, two Canadian). TIS exist in a variety of departments and settings, but most commonly are in university hospitals. Pregnant women were the most commonly counselled group worldwide. International TIS spent significantly more time fielding inquiries regarding medications, while North American TIS had a wider variety of inquiry categories. All TIS could improve budget tracking. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, service practices and goals were similar, although international TIS conducted more follow-up with service users than North American TIS. This report offers TIS the first ever opportunity to compare practices. Increased dialogue between TIS encourages sharing of best practices and improves the ability of these important public health programmes to support women and health care providers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".