Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23 (2001) 561–567 Characteristics of pregnant women who use Ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the characteristics of pregnant women who use Ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, MDMA), and to identify reproductive risk factors associated with this group of women. Prospective, observational study. Pregnant women who have contacted the Motherisk Alcohol and Substance Use Helpline at The Hospital for Sick Children, in Toronto, about exposure to drugs, chemicals, infection or radiation. All inquiries from December 1998 to October 2000 concerning pregnant women who reported use of MDMA, and control cases of women not exposed to MDMA selected within the same week of the MDMA callers. Age, maternal demographics, pregnancy characteristics, patterns of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, psychological/emotional status, sexually transmitted disease, MDMA method and pattern of use, and adverse drug reactions after ingestion of MDMA. The 132 pregnant women who used MDMA were significantly younger (mean 23.2 vs. 31.2 years, P <.0001), and had more unplanned pregnancies compared to 122 pregnant nonusers (84.2 % vs. 54.3%, P <.05). MDMA users were also more likely to be single (57.0 % vs. 18.3%, P <.001), and to be White (82.2 % vs. 56.0%, P <.05). Comparably more MDMA users smoked cigarettes (53.8 % vs. 19.7%, P <.0001), drank alcohol (66.4 % vs. 37.3%, P <.0001), and had significantly more episodes of binge drinking during pregnancy (mean 2.12 vs. 0.05, P <.001). Illicit drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, ketamine, gamma-hydroxy butyrate, and psilocybin were used more frequently among the MDMA sample. Over a third of MDMA users reported psychiatric/emotional problems, including 6.5 % with a clinically diagnosed condition that was being treated with medication and/or counseling. Pregnant women who
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".