Pseudotumor cerebri syndrome with different types of hormonal contraceptives in women of child‐bearing age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is a lack of comparative safety data on the risk of pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS) associated with different hormonal contraceptives. We sought to quantify the risk of PTCS associated with eight different types of hormonal contraceptives compared with oral levonorgestrel. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, with a case-control analysis of 4 871 504 women aged 15-45 years in the period 2008-2015, using IQVIA Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records data in the USA. Patients who used nine different contraceptive agents including intrauterine levonorgestrel, medroxyprogesterone injection, etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol vaginal ring and combination oral contraceptives (COCs) that contained ethinyl estradiol and the progestins levonorgestrel, norgestimate, desogestrel, norethindrone and drospirenone, were included. Diagnosis of PTCS was defined using the first International Classification of Diseases, 9th or 10th revision, code for intracranial hypertension in patients who had also received an imaging code in the 30 days prior to the index date. RESULTS: A total of 3323 PTCS cases and 13 292 matched controls were identified. No increase in risk was found when analysing intrauterine levonorgestrel or COCs containing desogestrel, norethindrone, drospirenone, norgestimate or norgestrel versus COC levonorgestrel. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for etonogestrel/etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol vaginal ring and medroxyprogesterone suspension compared with levonorgestrel COC was 4.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-9.96] and 2.20 (95% CI 1.33-3.64), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found an elevated risk for PTCS among users of etonogestrel vaginal ring and medroxyprogesterone suspension when compared with oral levonorgestrel. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".