MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prenatal Exposure to Antidepressants and Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn

2014· article· en· W2326701209 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Grigoriadis, Emily H. VonderPorten, Lana Mamisashvili, George Tomlinson, Cindy‐Lee Dennis, Gideon Koren, Meir Steiner, Patricia Mousmanis, Amy Cheung, Lori E. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyOdds ratioConfidence intervalRelative riskCohort studyRespiratory distressMeta-analysisPediatricsObstetricsAntidepressantInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decisions about using antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder during pregnancy are complex. A potential adverse effect is persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), with an estimated baseline prevalence of 1.9 of 1000 live births. Symptoms can range from mild respiratory distress to hypoxia. Although a potential association between maternal use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy and PPHN was noted in 2006, subsequent published evidence is contradictory. This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine whether a relationship exists between prenatal exposure to antidepressants and PPHN, with consideration of known risk factors. The literature search included EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through December 2012. Cohort and case-control English-language studies were eligible if they reported on PPHN after any exposure to antidepressants, had a comparison group of unexposed pregnant women for the antidepressant under analysis, and included or had data to calculate an effect size. Because PPHN is rare, adjusted or unadjusted odds ratios (ORs), prevalence, or relative risks were included in the analyses as estimates of ORs. Of 738 articles assessed, 5 cohort and 2 case-control studies were included in the final quantitative analysis; 3 reported data on exposure to SSRIs in early pregnancy, 2 reported on exposure at any time in pregnancy, 2 reported on exposure for most or all of pregnancy, and 5 reported on exposure in late pregnancy. For studies examining exposure to SSRIs in early pregnancy, the pooled OR was 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–2.60), and significant study heterogeneity was found. The pooled OR for exposure to SSRIs at any time was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.79–3.04). The pooled OR with exposure during “most or all of pregnancy” was significant at 3.33 (95% CI, 1.58–7.02). The pooled OR for exposure in late pregnancy was significant at 2.50 (95% CI, 1.32–4.73). The absolute risk difference for developing PPHN after exposure to SSRIs in late pregnancy was 2.9 to 3.5 of 1000 infants; 286 to 351 women would need to be treated with an SSRI in late pregnancy to result in a mean of 1 additional case of PPHN. These results suggest that the risk for PPHN is increased with exposure to SSRIs in late pregnancy. Study design, congenital malformations, or meconium aspiration were not significant effect modifiers; cesarean delivery, maternal obesity, and preterm delivery could not be assessed as possible moderating effects. Depression during pregnancy must not be left untreated, and the parturient and her family must be advised of the risks for exposing the fetus to antidepressant drugs weighed against the risks for severe maternal depression. To avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment of PPHN, neonatologists must be made aware of the mother’s exposure to SSRIs.

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)0.004
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207