Rates of abortions following exposure to antidepressants: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. (1) To estimate population baseline rates of spontaneous (SAs) and therapeutic abortions (TAs); (2) determine whether women taking antidepressants have increased risks/rates. Methods. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, Toxline, Psychlit, Cochrane database, and Reprotox were searched for cohort studies published 1966–2002 reporting SAs and TAs in women taking antidepressants, compared to non-depressed women. Results. Of 15 potential articles, 6 cohort studies provided extractable data. All matched on important confounders. Baseline control rates (CI95%) were 8.7% (7.5%–9.9%, n = 2033) and 6.0% (3.3%–8.7%, n = 2033) for SA and TA, respectively. Antidepressant rates were 12.4% (10.8%–14.1%) and 8.5% (6.0%–11.1%), with significant risk increases of 3.9% (1.9%–6.0%) and 2.9% (0.5%–5.3%), respectively. RRs were 1.52 (1.22–1.89, n = 3567) for SA and 1.47 (1.14–1.89, n = 3552) for TA. No differences were found among antidepressant classes. Conclusions. Although this meta-analysis indicates that maternal exposure to antidepressants may be associated with a significantly increased risk for spontaneous abortions and therapeutic abortions, depression per se may also be associated with abortive properties.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".