MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401008354 · doi:10.1177/00368504241234781

Third generation antiseizure medications exposure during pregnancy and neonatal adverse birth outcomes: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4401008354 on OpenAlexafffund
Joyce Goubran, Oreofe Okunnu, Alekhya Lavu, Sherif Eltonsy

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Progress · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersWinnipeg Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectPregnancyObstetricsIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Third generation antiseizure medications (ASMs) are currently used for seizure control as well as several other indications, including pain management and psychiatric disorders. As a result, maternal exposure to third generation ASMs during pregnancy has become increasingly prevalent. The current systematic review aimed to summarize the published evidence on third generation ASMs and their effect on preterm birth, cesarean section (c-section) and fetal loss. Methods: The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library and Scopus until September 2022. Results: We screened 2987 studies, and identified 32 studies or case reports for inclusion, however only one study utilized a control group. Narrative systematic evidence synthesis was conducted for brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine, fosphenytoin, lacosamide and perampanel. Conclusion: Due to the scarcity and quality of published studies, drawing clear-cut conclusions regarding third generation ASMs and the outcomes of interest is challenging. More comparative safety studies focusing on neonatal safety of third generation ASMs in pregnancy are essential.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience ProgressSame topicPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesFrench-language works237,207