Recurrent use of newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epidemiological studies that assessed the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with newer oral contraceptives (OC) did not distinguish between patterns of OC use, namely first-time users, repeaters and switchers. Data from a Transnational case-control study were used to assess the risk of VTE for the latter patterns of use, while accounting for duration of use. Over the period 1993-1996, 551 cases of VTE were identified in Germany and the UK along with 2066 controls. Totals of 128 cases and 650 controls were analysed for repeat use and 135 cases and 622 controls for switching patterns. The adjusted rate ratio of VTE for repeat users of third generation OC was 0.6 (95% CI:0.3-1.2) relative to repeat users of second generation pills, whereas it was 1.3 (95% CI:0.7-2.4) for switchers from second to third generation pills relative to switchers from third to second generation pills. We conclude that second and third generation agents are associated with equivalent risks of VTE when the same agent is used repeatedly after interruption periods or when users are switched between the two generations of pills. These analyses suggest that the higher risk observed for the newer OC in other studies may be the result of inadequate comparisons of pill users with different patterns of pill use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".