Exposure to Thioguanine During 117 Pregnancies in Women With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safety of thioguanine in pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is sparsely recorded. This study was aimed to document the safety of thioguanine during pregnancy and birth. METHODS: In this multicentre case series, IBD patients treated with thioguanine during pregnancy were included. Data regarding disease and medication history, pregnancy course, obstetric complications, and neonatal outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Data on 117 thioguanine-exposed pregnancies in 99 women were collected. Most [78%] had Crohn's disease and the mean age at delivery was 31 years. In 18 pregnancies [15%], IBD flared. Obstetric and infectious complications were seen in 15% [n = 17] and 7% [n = 8] of pregnancies, respectively. Ten pregnancies [8.5%] resulted in a first trimester miscarriage, one in a stillbirth at 22 weeks of gestational age and one in an induced abortion due to trisomy 21. In total, 109 neonates were born from 101 singleton pregnancies and four twin pregnancies. One child was born with a congenital abnormality [cleft palate]. In the singleton pregnancies, 10 children were born prematurely and 10 were born small for gestational age. Screening for myelosuppresion was performed in 16 neonates [14.7%]; two had anaemia in umbilical cord blood. All outcomes were comparable to either the general Dutch population or to data from three Dutch cohort studies on the use of conventional thiopurines in pregnant IBD patients. CONCLUSION: In this large case series, the use of thioguanine during pregnancy is not associated in excess with adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".