MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W34879191 · doi:10.1056/nejmsa2109779

Abortion Safety and Use with Normally Prescribed Mifepristone in Canada.

2022· article· en· W34879191 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bartosz Rozegnał

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersMinistry of Health, British ColumbiaInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsCorrectnessWaveletWavelet transformDiscrete wavelet transformAlgorismComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Transmission lineElectronic circuitElectric power transmissionElectronic engineeringAlgorithmLine (geometry)Wavelet packet decompositionArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the United States, mifepristone is available for medical abortion (for use with misoprostol) only with Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions, despite an absence of evidence to support such restrictions. Mifepristone has been available in Canada with a normal prescription since November 2017. METHODS: Using population-based administrative data from Ontario, Canada, we examined abortion use, safety, and effectiveness using an interrupted time-series analysis comparing trends in incidence before mifepristone was available (January 2012 through December 2016) with trends after its availability without restrictions (November 7, 2017, through March 15, 2020). RESULTS: A total of 195,183 abortions were performed before mifepristone was available and 84,032 after its availability without restrictions. After the availability of mifepristone with a normal prescription, the abortion rate continued to decline, although more slowly than was expected on the basis of trends before mifepristone had been available (adjusted risk difference in time-series analysis, 1.2 per 1000 female residents between 15 and 49 years of age; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 1.4), whereas the percentage of abortions provided as medical procedures increased from 2.2% to 31.4% (adjusted risk difference, 28.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 28.0 to 29.7). There were no material changes between the period before mifepristone was available and the nonrestricted period in the incidence of severe adverse events (0.03% vs. 0.04%; adjusted risk difference, 0.01 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.03), complications (0.74% vs. 0.69%; adjusted risk difference, 0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.18), or ectopic pregnancy detected after abortion (0.15% vs. 0.22%; adjusted risk difference, -0.03 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.09). There was a small increase in ongoing intrauterine pregnancy continuing to delivery (adjusted risk difference, 0.08 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: After mifepristone became available as a normal prescription, the abortion rate remained relatively stable, the proportion of abortions provided by medication increased rapidly, and adverse events and complications remained stable, as compared with the period when mifepristone was unavailable. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Women's Health Research Institute.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.143
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207