Identification of bipolar disorder in women with postpartum depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: No studies to date have assessed the pharmacological management of treatment-resistant postpartum depression. We reviewed the pharmacological treatment of postpartum depression in patients diagnosed with treatment-resistant 'unipolar' depression. METHODS: We conducted a chart review of patients treated consecutively at a perinatal clinic. Treatment-resistant postpartum depression was defined as a failure to respond to at least one adequate antidepressant trial. Patients were diagnosed using the DSM-IV criteria, and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) rating scale was used to assess response to various pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: The majority of patients (57%, 34/60) referred for postpartum depression actually suffered from bipolar disorder. All patients were on antidepressants at the time of referral, but by the end of the study 37% (22/60) continued on antidepressants alone or in combination with other medications. CGI-I ratings showed appreciable improvement in depression at the end of six months following the initial consultation. Very much improvement was noted in 65% (39/60) of patients, and 22% (13/60) were considered much improved. The most common change in medication was a switch to or addition of an atypical neuroleptic. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of a control group. CONCLUSIONS: Management of treatment resistance in women with postpartum depression should be considered within the context of types of mood disorders. Atypical neuroleptics and mood stabilizers used alone or as adjuncts should be considered in the treatment of resistant postpartum depression in patients with a bipolar diathesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".