Medication-Wide Association Study Using Electronic Health Record Data of Prescription Medication Exposure and Multifetal Pregnancies: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication-wide association studies (MWAS) have been applied to assess the risk of individual prescription use and a wide range of health outcomes, including cancer, acute myocardial infarction, acute liver failure, acute renal failure, and upper gastrointestinal ulcers. Current literature on the use of preconception and periconception medication and its association with the risk of multiple gestation pregnancies (eg, monozygotic and dizygotic) is largely based on assisted reproductive technology (ART) cohorts. However, among non-ART pregnancies, it is unknown whether other medications increase the risk of multifetal pregnancies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the risk of multiple gestational births (eg, twins and triplets) following preconception and periconception exposure to prescription medications in patients who delivered at Penn Medicine. METHODS: We used electronic health record data between 2010 and 2017 on patients who delivered babies at Penn Medicine, a health care system in the Greater Philadelphia area. We explored 3 logistic regression models: model 1 (no adjustment); model 2 (adjustment for maternal age); and model 3-our final logistic regression model (adjustment for maternal age, ART use, and infertility diagnosis). In all models, multiple births (MBs) were our outcome of interest (binary outcome), and each medication was assessed separately as a binary variable. To assess our MWAS model performance, we defined ART medications as our gold standard, given that these medications are known to increase the risk of MB. RESULTS: Of the 63,334 distinct deliveries in our cohort, only 1877 pregnancies (2.96%) were prescribed any medication during the preconception and first trimester period. Of the 123 medications prescribed, we found 26 (21.1%) medications associated with MB (using nominal P values) and 10 (8.1%) medications associated with MB (using Bonferroni adjustment) in fully adjusted model 3. We found that our model 3 algorithm had an accuracy of 85% (using nominal P values) and 89% (using Bonferroni-adjusted P values). CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates the opportunities in applying the MWAS approach with electronic health record data to explore associations between preconception and periconception medication exposure and the risk of MB while identifying novel candidate medications for further study. Overall, we found 3 novel medications linked with MB that could be explored in further work; this demonstrates the potential of our method to be used for hypothesis generation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".