Narcotic tapering in pregnancy using long-acting morphine: an 18-month prospective cohort study in northwestern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the management of and outcomes for patients receiving narcotic replacement and tapering with long-acting morphine preparations during pregnancy. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study over 18 months. SETTING: Northwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All 600 births at Meno Ya Win Health Centre in Sioux Lookout, Ont, from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, including 166 narcotic-exposed pregnancies. INTERVENTION: Narcotic replacement and tapering of narcotic use with long-acting morphine preparations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prenatal management of maternal narcotic use, incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome, and other neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: The incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome fell significantly to 18.1% of pregnancies exposed to narcotics (from 29.5% in a previous 2010 study, P = .003) among patients using narcotic replacement and tapering with long-acting morphine preparations. Neonatal outcomes were otherwise equivalent to those of the nonexposed pregnancies. CONCLUSION: In many patients, long-acting morphine preparations can be safely used and tapered in pregnancy, with a subsequent decrease in observed neonatal withdrawal symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".