MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372329065 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101010

Exogenous oxytocin administration during labor and autism spectrum disorder

2023· article· en· W4372329065 on OpenAlexafffund
Jalisa Lynn Karim, Shirley Solomon, Helena Abreu do Valle, Enav Z. Zusman, Amanda Nitschke, Gal Meiri, Ilan Dinstein, Angie Ip, Nancy Lanphear, Bruce P. Lanphear, Sarah M. Hutchison, Grace Iarocci, Tim F. Oberlander, Idan Menashe, Gillian E. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaAzrieli FoundationMichael Smith Health Research BCBC Children's HospitalBC Children’s Hospital Foundation
KeywordsOxytocinAutism spectrum disorderMedicineCohortCohort studyConfoundingAutismPopulationRetrospective cohort studyHazard ratioObstetricsPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oxytocin is a neuropeptide hormone that plays a key role in social behavior, stress regulation, and mental health. Synthetic oxytocin administration is a common obstetrical practice, and importantly, previous research has suggested that intrapartum exposure may increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association between synthetic oxytocin exposure during labor and autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the child. STUDY DESIGN: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared 2 cohorts of children: (1) all children born in British Columbia, Canada between April 1, 2000 and December 31, 2014 (n=414,336 births), and (2) all children delivered at Soroka University Medical Center in Be'er-Sheva, Israel between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2019 (n=82,892 births). Nine different exposure groups were examined. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate crude and adjusted hazard ratios of autism spectrum disorder in both cohorts on the basis of induction and/or augmentation exposure status. To further control for confounding by indication, we conducted sensitivity analyses among a cohort of healthy, uncomplicated deliveries and among a group that was induced only for postdates. In addition, we stratified our analyses by infant sex to assess for potential sex differences. RESULTS: In the British Columbia cohort, 170,013 of 414,336 deliveries (41.0%) were not induced or augmented, 107,543 (26.0%) were exposed to oxytocin, and 136,780 (33.0%) were induced or augmented but not exposed to oxytocin. In the Israel cohort, 51,790 of 82,892 deliveries (62.5%) were not induced or augmented, 28,852 (34.8%) were exposed to oxytocin, and 2250 (2.7%) were induced or augmented but not exposed to oxytocin. On adjusting for covariates in the main analysis, significant associations were observed in the Israel cohort, including adjusted hazard ratios of 1.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.90) for oxytocin-augmented births and 2.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-3.57) for those induced by means other than oxytocin and not augmented. However, oxytocin induction was not significantly associated with autism spectrum disorder in the Israel cohort. In the Canadian cohort, there were no statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios. Further, no significant sex differences were observed in the fully adjusted models. CONCLUSION: This study supports that induction of labor through oxytocin administration does not increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder in the child. Our international comparison of 2 countries with differences in clinical practice regarding oxytocin administration for induction and/or augmentation suggests that previous studies reporting a significant association were likely confounded by the underlying indication for the induction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207