Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Risk of Birth Defects in Offspring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The relationship between inflammatory bowel disease in pregnancy and birth defects is not understood. We evaluated whether Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in pregnant women were associated with the risk of birth defects in the offspring. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of 2 184 888 pregnancies in Quebec, Canada, between 1989 and 2016. We calculated risk ratios [RR] and 95% confidence intervals [CI] for the association between inflammatory bowel disease and the risk of birth defects, using generalised estimating equations adjusted for maternal characteristics. We assessed associations in the period before 2000, when immunosuppressive biologic therapy and folic acid food fortification were not yet available, compared with the period after 2000 when these interventions were more widespread. RESULTS: This study included 13 099 women with Crohn's disease and 7798 with ulcerative colitis. Crohn's disease was associated with 1.90 times [95% CI 1.10-3.28] the risk of abdominal wall defects [gastroschisis, omphalocoele, and diaphragmatic hernia] and ulcerative colitis was associated with 1.53 times [95% CI 1.02-2.30] the risk of central nervous system defects. The association of Crohn's disease with abdominal wall defects was stronger before 2000 [RR 3.62, 95% CI 1.71-7.67] than after 2000 [RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.55-2.75]. Ulcerative colitis was associated with central nervous system defects regardless of time period. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that inflammatory bowel disease is associated with the risk of abdominal wall and central nervous system defects, and that introduction of immunobiologic medications is unlikely to be associated with added risk. PODCAST: This article has an associated podcast which can be accessed at https://academic.oup.com/ecco-jcc/pages/podcast.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".