MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162573235 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmq025

Risk for postpartum depression associated with assisted reproductive technologies and multiple births: a systematic review

2010· review· en· W2162573235 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalLakehead UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOPostpartum depressionCINAHLMedicineDepression (economics)Cochrane LibraryMEDLINEDistressSystematic reviewAssisted reproductive technologyPsychiatryPsychological interventionPregnancyClinical psychologyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that certain obstetrical populations, including women who conceive using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and women with multiple births, may be at increased risk for postpartum depression. In this systematic literature review, we examine the published evidence for this hypothesis. METHODS: The databases Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from their start dates through to April 1, 2009 using relevant keywords. All published, peer-reviewed articles in English, Spanish or French including a standardized assessment of depression administered between 2 and 52 weeks postpartum were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers abstracted and critically appraised a total of 13 eligible articles. RESULTS: The data indicate little or no increased risk for postpartum depression among women who use ART to conceive. In contrast, most studies of adequate quality indicate that mothers of multiples may be at elevated risk for symptoms of depression. However, existing data do not permit differentiation between transient maternal distress and clinically significant postpartum depression. CONCLUSIONS: Studies included in this review were often limited by small samples and lack of appropriate comparison groups, making further research in this area essential. In particular, lack of control for maternal psychiatric history and other important sociodemographic predictors of depression is a serious limitation of existing research on this topic. Further, the use of reproductive technologies and multiple births often co-occur, and few study designs enabled separation of the effects of these two variables. However, evidence of increased risk for symptoms of postpartum depression among women with multiple births, if confirmed, may warrant targeted interventions for this population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.286 · 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