The fetal safety of clomiphene citrate: a population‐based retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether exposure to clomiphene citrate (CC) for ovulation induction is associated with major malformations overall or with specific fetal anomalies. DESIGN: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study. Exposure was defined as CC dispension from 2 months before conception through the first month of pregnancy. SETTINGS: Four databases were combined: medication, birth, hospitalization, and terminations of pregnancy. POPULATION: The study included all women in southern Israel who gave birth or underwent termination of pregnancy at Soroka Medical Center, from 1998 to 2009. METHODS: The rates of major malformations overall and six different subcategories of anomalies were evaluated. The crude odds ratio (OR) was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Subsequently the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was calculated using multiple logistic regression models controlling for maternal age, pre-pregnancy diabetes, parity, ethnicity, the calendar year in which the birth/termination of pregnancy took place, smoking, and the use of gonadotropins and progesterone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Major malformations overall and specific fetal malformations by organ systems. RESULTS: Of 114 961 pregnant women, 1872 were exposed to CC. No association was detected between exposure to CC and rates of major malformations overall (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88-1.32) or rates of subcategories of malformations. Exposure was not associated with anencephaly (aOR 2.27, 95% CI 0.44-11.71) or oesophageal atresia (aOR 3.681, 95% CI, 0.65-20.76). CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based retrospective cohort study, exposure to CC was not associated with an increased risk of either rates of major malformations overall or rates of specific malformations. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An observational study: no increased risk for fetal malformations following exposure to clomiphene citrate.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".