Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article AbstractObjective: The postpartum period is generally considered a time of heightened vulnerability to bipolar disorder; however, there is controversy about the effect of pregnancy on the course of bipolar disorder. This article reviews the literature on the relationship between pregnancy and bipolar disorder and suggests areas for future research.Data Sources and Study Selection: Three electronic databases, MEDLINE (1966-2010), PsycINFO (1840-2010), and EMBASE, were searched on April 30, 2010, using the following keywords: pregnancy, bipolar disorder, manic depressive disorder, suicide, hospitalization, pharmacotherapy, and psychotherapy. The reference lists of articles identified were also searched. All relevant papers published in English were included.Results: A total of 70 articles were identified and included in the review. Evidence from studies using nonclinical samples, some retrospective studies, and studies on psychiatric hospitalization rates is suggestive of a positive effect of pregnancy on bipolar disorder; however, recent studies conducted at tertiary care facilities have reported high rates of recurrence following discontinuation of mood stabilizers.Conclusions: Understanding the relationship between pregnancy and bipolar disorder has implications for perinatal treatment and etiologic understanding of the disorder. Research is urgently needed to estimate the prevalence of bipolar disorder during pregnancy, using both clinical and nonclinical samples.J Clin Psychiatry© Copyright 2012 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.Submitted: October 30, 2011; accepted May 22, 2012.Online ahead of print: August 21, 2012 (doi:10.4088/JCP.11r07499).Corresponding author: Verinder Sharma, MBBS, FRCPC, Regional Mental Health Care London, 850 Highbury Ave North, PO Box 5532, Station B, London ON N6A 4H1, Canada (vsharma@uwo.ca).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
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".