Expert consensus on neurodevelopmental outcomes in pregnancy pharmacovigilance studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exposure in utero to certain medications can disrupt processes of fetal development, including brain development, leading to a continuum of neurodevelopmental difficulties. Recognizing the deficiency of neurodevelopmental investigations within pregnancy pharmacovigilance, an international Neurodevelopmental Expert Working Group was convened to achieve consensus regarding the core neurodevelopmental outcomes, optimization of methodological approaches and barriers to conducting pregnancy pharmacovigilance studies with neurodevelopmental outcomes. Methods: A modified Delphi study was undertaken based on stakeholder and expert input. Stakeholders (patient, pharmaceutical, academic and regulatory) were invited to define topics, pertaining to neurodevelopmental investigations in medication-exposed pregnancies. Experts were identified for their experience regarding neurodevelopmental outcomes following medicinal, substances of misuse or environmental exposures in utero. Two questionnaire rounds and a virtual discussion meeting were used to explore expert opinion on the topics identified by the stakeholders. Results: Twenty-five experts, from 13 countries and professionally diverse backgrounds took part in the development of 11 recommendations. The recommendations focus on the importance of neurodevelopment as a core feature of pregnancy pharmacovigilance, the timing of study initiation and a core set of distinct but interrelated neurodevelopmental skills or diagnoses which require investigation. Studies should start in infancy with an extended period of investigation into adolescence, with more frequent sampling during rapid periods of development. Additionally, recommendations are made regarding optimal approach to neurodevelopmental outcome measurement, comparator groups, exposure factors, a core set of confounding and mediating variables, attrition, reporting of results and the required improvements in funding for potential later emerging effects. Different study designs will be required depending on the specific neurodevelopmental outcome type under investigation and whether the medicine in question is newly approved or already in widespread use. Conclusion: An improved focus on neurodevelopmental outcomes is required within pregnancy pharmacovigilance. These expert recommendations should be met across a complementary set of studies which converge to form a comprehensive set of evidence regarding neurodevelopmental outcomes in pregnancy pharmacovigilance.
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 | 0.260 | 0.341 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".