MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414054059 · doi:10.7326/annals-24-03479

Exposure to Computed Tomography Before Pregnancy and Risk for Pregnancy Loss and Congenital Anomalies

2025· article· en· W4414054059 on OpenAlexaffabout
Camille Simard, Longdi Fu, Tomi Odugbemi, Andrea N. Simpson, Jun Guan, Vicky Tagalakis, Aurélien Delluc, Joel G. Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographyPregnancyEarly Pregnancy LossEarly pregnancy factorGestationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Animal studies show ovarian follicle damage and mutagenesis after ionizing radiation exposure. Computed tomography (CT) imaging is commonly done outside pregnancy, but risks to future pregnancy are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk for spontaneous pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies in offspring of women exposed to CT ionizing radiation before conception. DESIGN: Population-based observational study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 5 142 339 recognized pregnancies and 3 451 968 live births identified between 1992 and 2023. MEASUREMENTS: The exposure was the cumulative number of CT scans up to 4 weeks before conception. Outcomes were spontaneous pregnancy loss (miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or stillbirth) among recognized pregnancies and congenital anomalies diagnosed within the first year of life among live births. RESULTS: Mean maternal age was 29 years. Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking were more common in those exposed to CT imaging. Among recognized pregnancies, rates of spontaneous pregnancy loss were 101, 117, 130, and 142 per 1000 pregnancies with 0, 1, 2, and 3 or more preconception CT scans, respectively, and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 1.08 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.08) for 1 CT scan, 1.14 (CI, 1.12 to 1.16) for 2 CT scans, and 1.19 (CI, 1.16 to 1.21) for 3 or more CT scans. Among live births, rates of congenital anomalies were 62, 84, 96, and 105 per 1000 births in those with 0, 1, 2, and 3 or more CT scans, and aHRs were 1.06 (CI, 1.05 to 1.08) for 1 CT scan, 1.11 (CI, 1.09 to 1.14) for 2 CT scans, and 1.15 (CI, 1.11 to 1.18) for 3 or more CT scans. The risk observed with head CT was not consistently lower than with CT of the abdomen, pelvis, or lower spine. LIMITATION: Incomplete ascertainment of CT exposure and underlying indication may have contributed to residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Exposure to preconception CT imaging may be associated with higher risks for spontaneous pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies, but causal mechanisms remain to be elucidated. Alternative imaging methods should be considered when appropriate. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207