Gold therapy in women planning pregnancy: outcomes in one center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the experience and outcome of pregnancies in women taking gold while planning pregnancy. METHODS: We undertook a chart review of patients attending for gold injection and monitoring between January 1992 and April 2006. For women who became pregnant while being followed taking gold therapy, we extracted demographic, treatment, and disease activity data, information regarding pregnancy complications, outcome, and postpartum course. For details missing from the clinic records, patients were interviewed by the clinic nurse. RESULTS: Fourteen women experienced 20 pregnancies while being followed in the gold monitoring clinic. Mean age at the time of conception was 34.5 years (range 24-41), disease duration 8.5 years (1-16). Rheumatoid factor was positive in 9 of 14 women. Duration taking gold prior to conception was < 12 months in 7 pregnancies, 13-24 months in 4, 25-34 months in 2, and 2-10 years in 7 pregnancies. Four women continued taking gold until delivery. The rest of the women discontinued gold when they knew they were pregnant, with the exception of one who held her gold 4 weeks prior to conception. There were 5 spontaneous abortions in the first trimester; included were 2 spontaneous abortions in a woman with known Robertsonian chromosomal translocation. Sixteen babies were healthy including a pair of twins. One baby was born with weakness of one extraocular muscle requiring surgery; one had blocked tear ducts at birth. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flared during 3/15 completed pregnancies and postpartum and post-spontaneous abortion in 18/20 pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Our clinic experience and the published literature support the current practice that in patients with RA, gold may still be considered a treatment option in women planning 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".