Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety of mesalamine in human pregnancy: a prospective controlled cohort study. Diav-citrin O, Park Y-H, Veerasuntharam G, Polachek H, Bologa M, Pastuszak A, Koren G. Gastroenterology 1998;114:23-8. The goal of this study was to evaluate the toxicity of mesalamine in pregnancy. The authors conducted a prospective controlled cohort study in Toronto, Canada, over a 6-year period from 1989-1995. Telephone interviews were performed of 165 women who contacted a teratogen information service about taking mesalamine during pregnancy, as well as 165 control subjects who contacted the service about taking drugs or having exposures not known or suspected to be teratogenic or fetotoxic. Control group exposures included nonteratogenic antibiotic usage (21.8%), topical retinoic acid (21.2%), acetaminophen (12.1%), antacids, and nonteratogenic amounts of radiation exposure. The follow-up period was 26.4 ± 21.1 months for the mesalamine group and 15.9 ± 13.4 months for the control group. Controls were equally matched in every respect, including gravidity, parity, spontaneous abortions, therapeutic abortions, as well as cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption, which were identified as possible confounders. Out of the 165 subjects in the mesalamine group, 146 (88%) were exposed to the medication in the first trimester and 72% took the medication throughout the course of their pregnancy. Mesalamine monotherapy occurred in 64.2% of women during the study period. The study's primary endpoint was the incidence of major structural malformations that would require serious medical, surgical, or cosmetic intervention. Other endpoints included maternal weight gain, pregnancy outcome, gestational age at delivery, induction of labor or need for forceps use, neonatal health problems, and any minor malformations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".