MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171856054 · doi:10.1586/17512433.1.5.605

Major malformations after first trimester exposure to aspirin and NSAIDs

2008· article· en· W2171856054 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Reza Nakhai-Pour, Anick Bérard

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Pharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinPharmacologyFirst trimesterPregnancyInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of aspirin and other NSAIDs during the first trimester of pregnancy is widespread, despite inconclusive evidence regarding the possible risks for the baby. We present an overview of the current evidence relating to the associations between aspirin or NSAID use during the first trimester of pregnancy and the risk of congenital malformations. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the reference lists of all relevant articles from 1966 to March 2008 that examined the association between aspirin and NSAID use during the first trimester of pregnancy and the risk of congenital malformations in humans. We analyzed 30 studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria: 22 case-control studies, seven cohort studies and one randomized, controlled trial. There are not enough human data available to assess the effect of high-dose aspirin and NSAIDs in pregnant women, such as those used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and pain relief. This review suggests that the exposure to aspirin or NSAIDs during the first trimester of pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of gastroschisis (aspirin), cardiac malformations (NSAIDs) and orofacial malformations (naproxen).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.403 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical PharmacologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207