Risk of Pseudotumor Cerebri Syndrome (PTCS) with hormonal contraceptive use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hormonal contraceptives (HC), one of the most prescribed classes of medication in women, have been linked with pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS). To date, no large epidemiologic study has examined this association.Methods: A case-control study using the IMS LifeLink Pharmetrics Plus database was conducted. Cases had an ICD-9-CM code for benign intracranial hypertension as well as a procedural code for a CT or MRI and a code for lumbar puncture procedure within 15 days of the PTCS code. Controls were selected from the cohort using density-based sampling.Results: From a cohort of 9,053,240 subjects, there were 288 cases of PTCS corresponding to 2,880 controls. The adjusted RRs for two or more prescriptions of oral combined contraceptive was 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.99). RRs for overall HC use was 0.91 (95% CI 0.39-2.12) for one prescription of HCs and 0.69 (95% CI 0.45-1.05) for two or more prescriptions. The RRs for one and two or more prescriptions of progestin only HCs were 0.75 (95% CI 0.08-7.46) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.42-2.69), respectively.Conclusions: Overall HC use does not have a significant effect on incidence of PTCS, however harm associated with progestin-only contraceptives cannot be excluded.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".