Significant changes in antipsychotic drug use during pregnancy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atypical antipsychotics are less likely to cause hyperprolactinemia-related side effects, such as infertility; hence it is predicted that more women taking antipsychotic medications will be able to become pregnant as the use of atypical antipsychotics increases. To compare the use of conventional and atypical antipsychotics, we conducted a retrospective review of the Motherisk Program clinic schedule from 1989 to 2001 comparing the proportion of appointments made for conventional and atypical antipsychotics. In 1989, 2.7% of all appointments were about the use of antipsychotic medication. In 2001, 7.4% of appointments were regarding antipsychotic drug use. This 170% increase was due to an increase in appointments for atypical antipsychotics as the number of appointments for conventional antipsychotics remained relatively constant over the 12-y period. Since the introduction of atypical antipsychotics, more women requiring antipsychotic drug therapy have been planning or becoming pregnant. This increase may have substantial public health implications.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".