MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132996533

The risk of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressants

2006· dissertation· W7132996533 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Erin Samantha Marie Salkeld

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsConfidence intervalMedical prescriptionAntidepressantOdds ratioDepression (economics)PregnancyPostpartum depressionMedical record
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. To determine if PPH was associated with third trimester antidepressant exposure, particularly SSRIs. Methods. This population-based nested case-control study of Ontario women with government-funded prescription coverage identified case patients who experienced PPH and randomly selected matched controls (1:10) from the same cohort. Hospitalisation records and prescription claims data were linked to ascertain outcomes and exposures for the study period (January 1999-March 2005). Results. There were 2.460 cases of PPH and 23.943 matched controls. Adjusted odds ratios for the association between PPH and exposure to SSRIs and non-SSRIs within 90 days prior to index were 1.30 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.72) and 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.62-2.01), respectively. Conclusions. Results were not consistent with a significantly increased risk of PPH in association with antidepressant exposure. Findings are applicable in risk-benefit assessments and are of public health importance given the prevalence of antenatal depression and the need to consider appropriate treatment strategies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→