Maternal Use of Weight Loss Products and the Risk of Neural Tube Defects in Offspring: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have assessed potential associations between use of weight loss products in the periconceptional period and neural tube defects (NTDs). However, the individual studies are inconclusive and there has not been a systematic review of this literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search, using Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, to identify studies that evaluated the association between products used for weight loss and the risk of NTDs. Because many studies of birth defects only evaluate a composite birth defect outcome, we evaluated studies that defined the outcome as "any major birth defect" or as NTDs. We abstracted data on study design, exposure definition, outcome definition, covariates and effect size estimates from each article that met our inclusion criteria. For studies that evaluated a composite birth defect outcome, we also abstracted the number of NTD cases included in the composite outcome. We used a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of each article. RESULTS: We screened 865 citations and identified nine articles that met our inclusion criteria. The majority of studies reported positive associations between maternal use of weight loss products and birth defects (overall and NTDs). However, there were few significant associations and there was considerable heterogeneity in the specific exposures assessed across the nine studies. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review of weight loss products and NTDs indicates that the literature on this topic is sparse. Because several studies reported modest, positive associations between risk and use of weight loss products, additional studies are warranted. Birth Defects Research 110:48-55, 2018. © 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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".