Antenatal and postpartum depressive symptoms are differentially associated with early childhood weight and adiposity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antenatal depression is associated with small-for-gestational age, but few studies have examined associations with weight during childhood. Similarly, few studies address whether antenatal and postpartum depression differentially affect child weight. Among 838 mother-child dyads in Project Viva, a prospective cohort study, we examined relationships of antenatal and postpartum depression with child weight and adiposity. We assessed maternal depression at mid-pregnancy and 6 months postpartum with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (score > or =13 indicating probable depression). We assessed child outcomes at age 3 years: body mass index (BMI) z-score, weight-for-height z-score, sum of subscapular (SS) and triceps (TR) skinfold thickness (SS + TR) for overall adiposity, and SS : TR ratio for central adiposity. Sixty-nine (8.2%) women experienced antenatal depression and 59 (7.0%) postpartum depression. Mean (SD) outcomes at age 3 were: BMI z-score, 0.45 (1.01); SS + TR, 16.72 (4.03) mm; SS : TR, 0.64 (0.15). In multivariable models, antenatal depression was associated with lower child BMI z-score (-0.24 [95% confidence interval: -0.49, 0.00]), but higher SS : TR (0.05 [0.01, 0.09]). There was no evidence of a dose-response relationship between antenatal depression and these outcomes. Postpartum depression was associated with higher SS + TR (1.14 [0.11, 2.18]). In conclusion, whereas antenatal depression was associated with smaller size and central adiposity at age 3 years, postpartum depression was associated with higher overall adiposity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".