MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293090323 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.22.22278046

Behavioural outcomes following in utero exposure to anti-seizure medication: protocol for a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4293090323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eliza Honybun, Emily Cockle, Charles B. Malpas, Terence J. O’Brien, Frank Vajda, Piero Perucca, Genevieve Rayner

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of MelbourneRoyal Australasian College of PhysiciansMonash UniversityEpilepsy FoundationNorman Beischer Medical Research FoundationAustralian Government
KeywordsObservational studyProtocol (science)Systematic reviewMEDLINEMedicineOffspringPsychiatryCognitionAdverse effectReporting biasPsychologyPediatricsClinical psychologyPregnancyAlternative medicinePathologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Prenatal exposure to certain antiseizure medications (ASMs) has been associated with increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring. While the cognitive and intellectual outcomes of ASM-exposed offspring have been well-described, the long-term behavioural and functional sequalae in these children have received less attention. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on the relationship between prenatal ASM exposure and postnatal adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, focusing on non-cognitive and intellectual domains of neurodevelopment including reduced social, emotional, behavioural, and adaptive functioning, as well as the frequency of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. This will have meaningful clinical implications for how we counsel women taking ASMs in pregnancy. Methods and analysis Studies reporting predefined neurodevelopmental outcomes will be identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, as well as additional manual and grey literature searches. Eligible studies will report outcomes of offspring exposed to ASMs in utero either prospectively or retrospectively from 1990 to present, with screening performed in duplicate. We will use the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to conduct methodological quality assessments of included observational studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to report on the review findings. Meta-analysis is not anticipated. Ethics and dissemination Ethics clearance is not required for the current study. The systematic review will be prepared as a journal article and published in a peer-reviewed journal upon completion. PROSPERO registration number PROSPERO CRD42021281919 Article Summary Strengths and limitations of this study This protocol was developed and written according to the PRISMA-P guidelines Publication of this protocol ensures transparency and reproducibility of the methods of the systematic review, as well as reduces the likelihood of review duplication Restricting publications to English only may introduce bias whereby some relevant data is not included Meta-analysis is not likely to be possible due to heterogeneity in study methodology, reducing the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn Targeting psychosocial and behavioural outcomes allows for a more nuanced understanding of the long-term clinical consequences of prenatal ASM-exposure

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.017
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.009

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207