Induced abortions in women with systemic lupus erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rates of induced abortions in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) compared to women from the general population and assess disease-related predictors of induced abortion in women with SLE. METHODS: We identified women with SLE (15-45 years) and determined the number of induced abortions, using Quebec's administrative databases. We calculated the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) using general population rates. We also performed a nested-case control analysis to investigate predictors of induced abortions in SLE women (such as teratogenic immunosuppressive and corticosteroid exposures). RESULTS: Among 2508 women with SLE, we observed 293 induced abortions [incidence rate of 17.1 induced abortions per 1000 person-years (95% CI 15.2, 19.2)]. There was no clear difference in the number of induced abortions among women with SLE versus women from the general population (SIR 1.10; 95% CI 0.98, 1.24). In the multivariable analysis, we did not observe higher rates of induced abortions among women exposed to teratogenic immunosuppressives [rate ratio (RR) 0.37; 95% CI 0.13, 1.07] or using corticosteroids (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.39, 1.16). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that women with SLE have a similar rate of induced abortions as compared to the general population. This raises some concerns as unplanned pregnancies in SLE women can lead to adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Our results should prompt further research on family planning counselling in women with SLE.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".