Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Symptoms of nausea and vomiting are commonly experienced during early pregnancy (nausea and vomiting of pregnancy or NVP) and have been associated with stress, anxiety, and depression in pregnancy. However, nausea and vomiting in late pregnancy is a little-studied phenomenon. The purpose of our study was to examine the prevalence, severity, and psychosocial determinants of NVP during early and late pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were originally from a longitudinal and epidemiological study of depression in pregnancy and postpartum in a cohort of 648 Canadian women conducted from 2005 to 2008. Measures included the Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy Instrument (NVPI), the Cambridge Worry Scale (CWS), and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Demographic, maternal/obstetrical, psychological, and behavioral variables related to NVP were also examined. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all risk factors investigated using multiple logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: The prevalence of NVP was 63.3% (n = 551) at Time 1 (early pregnancy) and 45.4% (n = 575) at Time 2 (late pregnancy). Severity of symptoms was associated with earlier gestation, antiemetic medication use, employment status, and symptoms of major depression. Maternal smoking and having the support of three or more persons were protective for NVP. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that screening for NVP should be ongoing throughout pregnancy and measures that address NVP, poor social support, and depression are warranted. Further research is needed in regard to effective management of this very common and distressing condition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".