Inconsolable Infant Crying and Maternal Postpartum Depressive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent to which maternal report of inconsolable infant crying, rather than colic (defined by Wessel's criteria of daily duration of fussing and crying >3 hours), is associated with maternal postpartum depressive symptoms. METHODS: Participants were 587 mothers who were recruited shortly before or after delivery and followed longitudinally. At 5 to 6 weeks postpartum, mothers recorded the duration and mode (fussing, crying, or inconsolable crying) of their infant's distress by using the Baby's Day Diary. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was administered at enrollment and at 8 weeks postpartum. Using regression models that included baseline EPDS scores and multiple confounders, we examined associations of colic and inconsolable crying with later maternal EPDS scores at 8 weeks postpartum. RESULTS: Sixty mothers (10%) met the EPDS threshold for "possible depression" (score ≥9) at 8 weeks postpartum. For mothers reporting >20 minutes of inconsolable crying per day, the adjusted odds ratio for an EPDS score ≥9 was 4.0 (95% confidence interval: 2.0-8.1), whereas the adjusted odds ratio for possible depression in mothers whose infants had colic was 2.0 (95% confidence interval: 1.1-3.7). These associations persisted after adjusting for baseline depression symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal report of inconsolable infant crying may have a stronger association with postpartum depressive symptoms than infant colic. Asking a mother about her ability to soothe her infant may be more relevant for potential intervention than questions about crying and fussing duration alone.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".