MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2298661593 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n3p304

Role of Omega-3 Unsaturated Fatty Acids in the Postpartum Depression: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

2016· article· en· W2298661593 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fatima Mougharbel, Raywat Deonandan

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostpartum depressionPolyunsaturated fatty acidMedicineEtiologyObservational studyDepression (economics)Psychological interventionPregnancyInternal medicinePsychiatryFatty acidBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a complex mental health disorder that affects women during their childbearing years. It is a serious medical condition that occurs in approximately 15% of women after birth and has an adverse effect on both the mother and the infant. Hypotheses exist relating dietary deficiencies in a pregnant or postnatal woman’s diet may cause postnatal depression. It is unclear whether Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) are effective for treating or preventing PPD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the best available evidence to date regarding the effect of n-3 PUFAs on the etiology, prevention and treatment of postnatal depression. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted in order to address the gaps in knowledge. For the systematic review, a broad search of electronic databases of published quantitative literature was conducted. The narrative synthesis consists of four elements: 1) developing a theory; 2) developing a preliminary synthesis; 3) exploring relationships in the data; 4) assessing the robustness of the synthesis. Published experimental and observational studies were accepted involving women who were pregnant or who had given birth in the previous six weeks. N-3 PUFAs was the intervention of interest and PPD was the outcome. RESULTS: Out of 181 potential articles, a total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. The overwhelming majority of the studies found that n-3 PUFAs had no inverse association with PPD evaluations. Significant heterogeneity was observed among included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, This systematic review and narrative synthesis failed to find a significant positive association between n-3 PUFAs intake and PPD.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→