MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postpartum depression: we know the risks, can it be prevented?

2005· review· en· W2089541107 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Zinga, Shauna Dae Phillips, L. Ingeborgh van den Born

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostpartum depressionPsychosocialDepression (economics)MoodVulnerability (computing)PregnancyPsychiatryInterpersonal communicationPsychologyPostpartum periodMedicineInterpersonal psychotherapyClinical psychologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 20 years, there has been increasing recognition that for some women, pregnancy may be burdened with mood problems, in particular depression, that may impact both mother and child. With identification of risk factors for postpartum depression and a growing knowledge about a biologic vulnerability for mood change following delivery, research has accumulated on attempts to prevent postpartum depression using various psychosocial, psychopharmacologic, and hormonal strategies. The majority of psychosocial and hormonal strategies have shown little effect on postpartum depression. Notwithstanding, results from preliminary trials of interpersonal therapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy, and antidepressants indicate that these strategies may be of benefit. Information on prevention of postpartum depression using dietary supplements is sparse and the available evidence is inconclusive. Although a few studies show promising results, more rigorous trials are required. The abounding negative evidence in the literature indicates that postpartum depression cannot be easily prevented, yet.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207