MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592681455 · doi:10.1002/bdra.23604

Can We Rely on Pharmacy Claims Databases to Ascertain Maternal Use of Medications during Pregnancy?

2017· article· en· W2592681455 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth Defects Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMedicinePharmacoepidemiologyPregnancyPharmacyMedical prescriptionCohortConcordanceConfidence intervalDatabasePediatricsInternal medicineEmergency medicineFamily medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Administrative databases are increasingly used to measure drug exposure in perinatal pharmacoepidemiology. We aimed to estimate the concordance between records of prescriptions filled in pharmacies and self-reported drug use during pregnancy. METHODS: Data on self-reported medication use were collected at each trimester of pregnancy among a sub-sample from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists Antidepressants in Pregnancy Cohort. Women were eligible if they were Quebec resident and provided their pharmacist's contact information. Maternal self-reports were compared with prescriptions filled in pharmacies, which are transferred to pharmaceutical services files of Quebec provincial health plan database (Régie de l'asssurance maladie du Québec). Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for medications taken chronically (antidepressants, thyroid hormones), acutely (antibiotics), and as needed (antiemetics, asthma medications) were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 93 participants (mean age = 30.2 ± 3.8 years), 41.9% (n = 39) took at least one antidepressant during pregnancy according to self-reports, and 39.8% (n = 37) according to pharmacy records. Other commonly used drugs were antiemetics (self-reported 22.6%, pharmacy record 24.7%), antibiotics (20.4%, 16.1%), asthma medications (15.1%, 15.1%), and thyroid hormones (10.8%, 8.6%). PPVs and NPVs were: (1) chronic medication: antidepressants PPV = 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 100-100%), NPV = 96% (95% CI, 92-100%); thyroid hormones PPV = 100% (95% CI, 100-100%), NPV = 98% (95% CI, 95-100%); (2) Acute medication: antibiotics PPV = 87% (95% CI, 70-100%), NPV = 92% (95% CI, 86-98%); (3) as needed medications: antiemetics: PPV = 78% (95% CI, 62-95%), NPV = 96% (95% CI, 91-100%); asthma: PPV = 33% (95% CI, 3-64%), NPV = 99% (95% CI, 97-100%). CONCLUSION: The high PPV and NPV validate the use of filled prescription data in large databases as a measure of medication exposure. Birth Defects Research 109:423-431, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.201 · 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