MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2403728759

Do findings differ across research design? The case of antidepressant use in pregnancy and malformations.

2012· article· en· W2403728759 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas R. Einarson, Deborah Kennedy, Adrienne Einarson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyConfoundingMedicineCohort studyOdds ratioClinical study designRetrospective cohort studyProspective cohort studyPregnancyCohortPediatricsClinical trialInternal medicineBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many studies examining the teratogenic potential of antidepressants have been published. A variety of observational designs have been used with apparent conflicting results, although odds ratios were rarely >2. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether these apparent differences were associated with research methods such as model, comparison groups, data source, data collection procedures, definition of malformations, outcome ascertainment or management of confounders. METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched using terms: pregnancy, antidepressants, serotonin uptake inhibitors OR SSRI, AND embryonic structures OR congenital malformations OR fetal development for observational studies with original data. Data were analyzed using a structured approach and narrative review. Designs that were compared, included prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, and case-control studies. Rates of major malformations and cardiac malformations were combined by study type using random effects meta-analytic models. RESULTS: We identified 150 papers; 127 were rejected, 23 were analyzed: 9 prospective cohort, 8 retrospective cohort, and 6 case-control studies. Sample sizes were large (1,818 exposed in case-control and 16,824 in cohort studies), providing relatively robust findings. Overall Odds Ratios for major malformations ranged from 1.03-1.24 and 0.81-1.32 for cardiac malformations. No discrepancies among research designs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse observational models with differing strengths and weaknesses produced remarkably similar non-significant results. Perceived conflicting results may be due to subsequent dissemination of results with attention given to small statistically differences with negligible clinical importance. Improved methods of knowledge transfer and translation are required to provide sound evidence-based information to assist in decision-making surrounding the use of antidepressants 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)0.477
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.734
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4770.734
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.013
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.215 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→