Prenatal exposure to benzodiazepines and the development of the offspring – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available literature on long-term-development of children exposed to benzodiazepines in utero, through a systematic review. INFORMATION SOURCES: We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO and embase (1/9-2020 to 3/9-2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included original studies with children older than one year prenatally exposed to BZ's and Z-hypnotics with outcomes regarding all psychological-, social-, motor- and neurodevelopmental disorders or disturbances of the children. Studies without a BZ-unexposed comparison group were excluded. Studies with only a single-dose exposure, conference abstracts, case reports and case series were excluded. RISK OF BIAS: The intern validity of the included studies was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale tool (NOS). INCLUDED STUDIES: 13 cohort studies were included in this systematic review. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: The outcomes investigated were internalizing and externalizing problems, language, hearing and communication skills, neurological outcomes and motor function, behavioral and emotional problems, social skills, intellect and academic achievements, psychiatric diagnoses and overall development. We found some evidence of higher risk of developing internalizing problems, impaired gross motor skills, lower academic achievements and increased ADHD-traits among children exposed to benzodiazepines in utero. CONCLUSION: Prenatal exposure to benzodiazepines were associated with 4 developmental outcomes indicating an impaired long-term-development of the offspring. However, results were contradicting, and it cannot be ruled out, that findings might be due to bias. Furthermore, it remains uncertain if the results are of clinical relevance and whether developmental problems persist in later childhood. This study revealed a clear need for further research in the subject.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".