ArticleDrug safety2020
Identifying Drugs Inducing Prematurity by Mining Claims Data with High-Dimensional Confounder Score Strategies.
Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods for drug safety signal detection using routinely collected observational electronic health care data: A systematic review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of Methods Adjusting for Unmeasured Confounding Using Large Healthcare Databases: An Empirical Study Concerning Drugs Inducing Prematurity.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- The use of artificial intelligence in sexual and reproductive health: a comprehensive scoping review.npj women's health · 2025Article
- Article
- High-Dimensional Propensity Score-Adjusted Case-Crossover for Discovering Adverse Drug Reactions from Computerized Administrative Healthcare Databases.Drug safety · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPregnant women are largely exposed to medications. However, knowledge is lacking about their effects on pregnancy and the fetus.
objectiveThis study sought to evaluate the potential of high-dimensional propensity scores and high-dimensional disease risk scores for automated signal detection in pregnant women from medico-administrative databases in the context of drug-induced prematurity.
methodsWe used healthcare claims and hospitalization discharges of a 1/97th representative sample of the French population. We tested the association between prematurity and drug exposure during the trimester before delivery, for all drugs prescribed to at least five pregnancies. We compared different strategies (1) for building the two scores, including two machine-learning methods and (2) to account for these scores in the final logistic regression models: adjustment, weighting, and matching. We also proposed a new signal detection criterion derived from these scores: the p value relative decrease. Evaluation was performed by assessing the relevance of the signals using a literature review and clinical expertise.
resultsScreening 400 drugs from a cohort of 57,407 pregnancies, we observed that choosing between the two machine-learning methods had little impact on the generated signals. Score adjustment performed better than weighting and matching. Using the p value relative decrease efficiently filtered out spurious signals while maintaining a number of relevant signals similar to score adjustment. Most of the relevant signals belonged to the psychotropic class with benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and antipsychotics.
conclusionsMining complex healthcare databases with statistical methods from the high-dimensional inference field may improve signal detection in pregnant women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32124266What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.