Maternal cognitive functioning in pregnancy and its association with gestation, endocrine factors and fetal sex: A longitudinal study in women from early pregnancy to the postpartum period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research addressing the effects of maternal cognitive changes during pregnancy has yielded equivocal findings with both confirmatory and negative results appearing fairly equally in the literature. In an attempt to evaluate and further test this phenomena, 45 women where tracked from early pregnancy until postnatal resumption of menses. An age and education matched control group of 45 non-pregnant women were tested concurrently. At each of the five test sessions participants completed a battery of cognitive tests. Results showed no effect of pregnancy on any of the dependent measures, with pregnant women performing no worse than control women on the nine cognitive tasks administered. One possible explanation for this negative finding (and the research ambiguity in this area) could be linked to the sex of the fetus. When fetal sex was considered, a selective and persistent effect on maternal cognitive function was observed. Those women pregnant with sons consistently outperformed women pregnant with daughters on the tests of working memory. On several other cognitive tests fetal sex was unrelated to maternal performance. This effect was evident from the first test session and persisted until the final session and was unrelated to sleep, mood and demographic measures. This result suggests either a fetal-derived factor that differs in type or concentration between male and female fetuses may influence the mothers' cognition both during pregnancy and into the postnatal phase. Or, alternatively, qualities inherent to the mother may be related to both her propensity to deliver a specific sex and her cognitive profile. Both possible explanations are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".