Prescription medication use during pregnancies that resulted in births and abortions (2001-2013): A retrospective population-based study in a Canadian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to describe medication use in pregnancies that resulted in births and abortions, as well as use after a pregnancy-related visit to characterize the receipt of medication after knowledge of pregnancy. Abortions included both spontaneous and induced abortions. Rates of medication use among women with a pregnancy outcome (2001-2013) were described using the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. Use was determined as ≥ 1 prescription filled during pregnancies that resulted in births (livebirth/stillbirth) and abortions. Rates were calculated at any time during pregnancy and after a pregnancy-related visit. Rates were additionally characterized by risk in pregnancy using Briggs classification (2017). Of 174,848 birth pregnancies, overall 64.9% filled ≥ 1 prescription during pregnancy (a significant increase from 62.3% to 68.8% from 2001-2013, p<0.0001); 55.4% filled ≥ 1 prescription after a pregnancy-related visit. Of 71,967 abortions, 44.7% filled ≥ 1 prescription (a significant increase from 42.6% to 46.8% from 2001-2013, p<0.0001). Only 3.7% of birth pregnancies had at least one prescription for a contraindicated medication (according to Briggs classification), whereas 10.8% of abortions filled a prescription for a contraindicated medication. The most common drugs used in pregnancy were amoxicillin, doxylamine, codeine combinations, nitrofurantoin, cephalexin, salbutamol and ranitidine. Fewer women filled prescriptions for undesirable medications according to Briggs classification during pregnancy after a pregnancy-related visit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".