MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251134584 · doi:10.1517/eods.3.1.25.25270

The safety of antihypertensives for treatment of pregnancy hypertension

2004· article· en· W4251134584 on OpenAlexaff
Laura A. Magee, S Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObservational studyHypertension in PregnancyDrugs in pregnancyAmbulatoryIntensive care medicineAmbulatory blood pressureBlood pressureAntihypertensive drugPharmacotherapyDrugFetusObstetricsPreeclampsiaInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review addresses the maternal and perinatal benefits and risks of antihypertensive therapy in pregnancy. It covers the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy (with a brief discussion of ambulatory blood pressure measurement) followed by both the general principles of management of pregnancy hypertension and the specifics of individual antihypertensive drugs and drug classes. Discussion is focused on quantitative overviews of randomised, controlled trials, although observational literature is also discussed, particularly in reference to the potential teratogenicity of agents and the safety of their administration to nursing mothers. The treatment of severe hypertension is addressed separately from the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension, for which the maternal and fetal risks are substantially different.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207