MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7115072133 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2025-abn.196

196 Pregnancy and infant outcomes in women with MS receiving ocrelizumab: analysis of ~4,000 pregnancies

2025· article· W7115072133 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn uteroPregnancyAbortionProspective cohort studyGestationEpidemiologyAdverse effectInfant mortality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

a:2:{s:4:"lang";s:2:"en";s:7:"content";s:1255:" The aim of this study is to report pregnancy and infant outcomes in women with MS exposed to ocrelizumab before or during pregnancy and/or breastfeeding. Pregnancies from the Roche safety database were analysed. Maternal ocrelizumab exposure was defined as ≥1 infusion; in utero exposure was defined as an infusion ≤3 months prior to the last menstrual period (LMP) or during pregnancy. Major congenital anomalies (MCA) were classified via EUROCAT 1.5. As of 28 March 2024, 3,989 cumulative MS pregnancies were reported; A total of 1,000 prospective pregnancies were considered in utero exposed. In utero exposed and non-exposed groups with known outcomes had similar proportions of live births (LB) (85.8% vs 89.2%), including preterm (8.5% vs 8.1%) LB, and spontaneous abortion (6.9% vs 8.4%). The proportion of LB with MCA was similar between the exposed and non-exposed group (1.8% vs 1.5%) and remained within epidemiological background. In utero exposure to ocrelizumab, primarily occurring ≤3M before the LMP and first trimester, did not increase the risk of adverse pregnancy or infant outcomes. Counselling remains important to ensure optimal outcomes for mothers and infants. ruth.dobson{at}qmul.ac.uk ";}

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPregnancy and Medication Impact→French-language works237,207→