MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1231790814

Validation of two postpartum depression screening scales with a sample of First Nations and Métis women.

2008· article· en· W1231790814 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela J Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScalePostpartum depressionDepression (economics)MedicinePsychiatryFamily medicinePatient Health QuestionnaireScale (ratio)PregnancyDepressive symptomsGeographyAnxiety
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purposes of this study were to determine the prevalence of postpartum depression (PPD) and to examine the utility of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS) and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in First Nations and Métis women in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. A total of 103 women who had given birth in the preceding 1 to 12 months were recruited from the city of Regina and from First Nations health centres in Saskatchewan. Self-report screening instruments assessing PPD were administered along with a structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID) to confirm the diagnosis of PPD. Of the 103 women, 17% were diagnosed with PPD. The findings support the validity of the PDSS and the EPDS as measures of PPD in First Nations and Métis women. The author discusses the need for primary health care professionals, including nurses, to offer postnatal screening for women who may be at risk for PPD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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