The safety of oral hypoglycemic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy: a meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between first-trimester exposure to oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), congenital anomalies and neonatal mortality, accounting for the potential confounding effect of maternal glycemic control. METHOD: A meta-analysis was conducted by searching the literature for studies reporting on women with type II diabetes mellitus, first-trimester exposure to OHAs and either major malformations and/or neonatal mortality. Glycemic control monitoring was noted. Studies were reviewed by two reviewers and disagreement was resolved by consensus. Odds ratios and risk differences were calculated to determine the risk of major malformations and neonatal mortality between those exposed and those not exposed to OHAs. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in the rates of major malformations between those exposed and those not exposed to OHAs; the odds ratio was 1.05 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.70) and the risk difference was 0.00 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.03). For studies reporting glycemic control, the odds ratio for major malformations between those exposed and those not exposed to OHAs was 1.06 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.81). For neonatal death, the odds ratio was 1.16 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.00) and the risk difference was -0.03 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.12). The studies did not provide sufficient detail to determine which OHA(s) were associated with adverse neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester exposure to OHAs did not significantly increase rates of major malformations or neonatal death. However, the studies were heterogeneous and care must be taken in interpreting the results. Further studies are needed to address the safety of OHAs in the first trimester with concomitant good glycemic control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".