MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160473344 · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.10.1728

Pregnancy Outcome Following Gestational Exposure to Venlafaxine: A Multicenter Prospective Controlled Study

2001· article· en· W2160473344 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne Einarson, Bumn Fatoye, Moumita Sarkar, Sharon Voyer Lavigne, Joanne Brochu, Christina Chambers, Pierpaolo Mastroiacovo, Antonio Addis, Doreen Matsui, Thomas R. Einarson, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Psychiatry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenlafaxinePregnancyMedicineObstetricsTeratologyGestationVenlafaxine HydrochlorideProspective cohort studyPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineAntidepressantAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Because there are no studies available on the safety of venlafaxine during pregnancy, the authors' goal in this study was to determine whether venlafaxine increases the risk for major malformations. METHOD: Data on 150 women exposed to venlafaxine during pregnancy in seven pregnancy counseling centers were compared with data from studies of pregnant women who 1) received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRIs) (N=150) and 2) who received nonteratogenic drugs (N=150). RESULTS: Among the 150 women who were exposed to venlafaxine during pregnancy, 125 had live births, 18 had spontaneous abortions, and seven had therapeutic abortions; two of the babies had major malformations. There were no significant differences between these women and the two comparison groups on any of the measures analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the use of venlafaxine during pregnancy does not increase the rates of major malformations above the baseline rate of 1%-3%.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations242
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207