MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry

2004· letter· en· W2164641674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lewis B. Holmes, Diego F. Wyszynski

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyFamily medicineInformed consentConfidence intervalPediatricsGestationMedical recordAdvisory committeeInclusion (mineral)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaObstetricsAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The North American AED (antiepileptic drug) Pregnancy Registry was established in 1997 for pregnant women in the United States and Canada at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. The major objective was to obtain, as quickly as possible, information on the frequency of major malformations among infants whose mothers had taken one or more AEDs to prevent seizures or to treat any other medical condition. The highest priority was new information on the many "new" AEDs marketed in the past 10 years. Methods: The eligible woman calls the toll-free number (1-888-233-2334) to obtain information and, we hope, to enroll. She is sent an informed-consent document to review, sign, and return. She is interviewed 3 times: at enrollment (12 min), 7 months' gestation (5 min), and 8 weeks after delivery (5 min). The findings by the doctor of each exposed infant are obtained with the mother's written permission. The study dysmorphologist uses established inclusion/exclusion criteria to identify major malformations (defined as a structural abnormality with surgical, medical, or cosmetic importance). The Scientific Advisory Committee meets separate from the representatives of the sponsoring companies to review anonymously the major findings. Findings in women who have enrolled before having any prenatal screening, a "pure" prospective group, are used to decide when findings should be released. The criterion for release of results for a positive association (relative risk, >1) is met when the lower of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is ≥2.0. The release criterion for no associated increase in the frequency of all major malformations is met when the upper of the 95% confidence limits does not exceed 2.0. The external comparison group is the findings in the Active Malformations Surveillance Program at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The findings in 69,277 newborns, published previously (1), was a baseline rate of 2.24%, which was reduced to 1.62% after excluding infants with genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities. The major malformations are identified between birth and age 5 days. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are the same as those used in the AED Pregnancy Registry. Results: As of July 12, 2004, total enrollment was 3,708 women; 75% of the women were taking one of 20 different monotherapies, and 63% were "pure" prospective enrollees. The lost-to-follow-up rate has been 3%. The findings have been released for two drugs as monotherapy: phenobarbital (PB) (2) and sodium valproate (VPA) (3), the latter published only as an abstract (an update will be possible after the full results have been published). As of July 12, 2004, six (6.5%) of 92 pure prospective pregnancies with exposure to PB were associated with major malformations (95% CI, 2.4–13.7%). When compared with the background rate (1.62%), a significantly increased risk (RR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9–8.7%) was noted. Conclusions: A hospital-based pregnancy registry can enroll a significant number of pregnant women who are taking an AED. Many more enrollees are needed to provide the important information needed on many "new" AEDs as monotherapy. Many eligible women do not enroll. We urge all readers to encourage their eligible patients to call 1-888-233-2334 early in pregnancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations78
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207