Use of combined hormonal contraceptives among women with systemic lupus erythematosus with and without medical contraindications to oestrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in reproductive-age women with SLE with and without possible contraindications and to determine factors associated with their use in the presence of possible contraindications. METHODS: This observational cohort study included premenopausal women ages 18-45 years enrolled in the SLICC Registry ⩽15 months after SLE onset, with annual assessments spanning 2000-2017. World Health Organization Category 3 or 4 contraindications to CHCs (e.g. hypertension, aPL) were assessed at each study visit. High disease activity (SLEDAI score >12 or use of >0.5 mg/kg/day of prednisone) was considered a relative contraindication. RESULTS: A total of 927 SLE women contributed 6315 visits, of which 3811 (60%) occurred in the presence of one or more possible contraindication to CHCs. Women used CHCs during 512 (8%) visits, of which 281 (55%) took place in the setting of one or more possible contraindication. The most frequently observed contraindications were aPL (52%), hypertension (34%) and migraine with aura (22%). Women with one or more contraindication were slightly less likely to be taking CHCs [7% of visits (95% CI 7, 8)] than women with no contraindications [9% (95% CI 8, 10)]. CONCLUSION: CHC use was low compared with general population estimates (>35%) and more than half of CHC users had at least one possible contraindication. Many yet unmeasured factors, including patient preferences, may have contributed to these observations. Further work should also aim to clarify outcomes associated with this exposure.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".