MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324020814 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.0148

Comparison of Perinatal Outcomes for Women With and Without Epilepsy

2023· review· en· W4324020814 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOMiscarriageOdds ratioPregnancyMEDLINEChecklistObstetricsCINAHLEpilepsyMeta-analysisData extractionPsychological interventionInternal medicinePsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Pregnant women who have epilepsy need adequate engagement, information, and pregnancy planning and management to improve pregnancy outcomes. Objective: To investigate perinatal outcomes in women with epilepsy compared with women without epilepsy. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched with no language or date restrictions (database inception through December 6, 2022). Searches also included OpenGrey and Google Scholar and manual searching in journals and reference lists of included studies. Study Selection: All observational studies comparing women with and without epilepsy were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The PRISMA checklist was used for abstracting data and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for risk-of-bias assessment. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were done independently by 2 authors with mediation conducted independently by a third author. Pooled unadjusted odds ratios (OR) or mean differences were reported with 95% CI from random-effects (I2 heterogeneity statistic >50%) or fixed-effects (I2 < 50%) meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Maternal, fetal, and neonatal complications. Results: Of 8313 articles identified, 76 were included in the meta-analyses. Women with epilepsy had increased odds of miscarriage (12 articles, 25 478 pregnancies; OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.15-2.29), stillbirth (20 articles, 28 134 229 pregnancies; OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.29-1.47), preterm birth (37 articles, 29 268 866 pregnancies; OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.51) and maternal death (4 articles, 23 288 083 pregnancies; OR, 5.00; 95% CI, 1.38-18.04). Neonates born to women with epilepsy had increased odds of congenital conditions (29 articles, 24 238 334 pregnancies; OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.66-2.12), neonatal intensive care unit admission (8 articles, 1 204 428 pregnancies; OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.58-2.51), and neonatal or infant death (13 articles, 1 426 692 pregnancies; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.24). The increased odds of poor outcomes was increased with greater use of antiseizure medication. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that women with epilepsy have worse perinatal outcomes compared with women without epilepsy. Women with epilepsy should receive pregnancy counseling from an epilepsy specialist who can also optimize their antiseizure medication regimen before and during pregnancy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.332 · 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