Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs During Third Trimester and the Risk of Premature Closure of the Ductus Arteriosus: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are increasingly being used during pregnancy to treat a variety of conditions. An evaluation of the risk of premature closure of the ductus arteriosus is useful in determining the safety of NSAIDs at different stages of pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether NSAID use during the third trimester of pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of premature constriction of the ductus arteriosus. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of MEDLINE (1966-2004), Embase (1980-2004), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1991-2004). Summary estimates of the odds ratios, comparing ductal outcomes in exposed and unexposed fetuses, and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated assuming a random effects model. RESULTS: Based on 217 patients exposed to indomethacin and 221 to placebo, the risk of ductal closure was 15-fold higher in the group of women exposed to NSAIDs compared with those receiving either placebo or other NSAIDs (8 studies; OR = 15.04, 95% CI 3.29 to 68.68). There was no significant increased risk of ductal closure in the infants of women treated with indomethacin compared with those receiving other drugs (4 studies; OR = 2.12, 95% CI 0.48 to 9.25). Similar results were found when calculating rate differences. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term use of NSAIDs in late pregnancy is associated with a significant increase in the risk of premature ductal closure.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".