MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328776929 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0b013e31820c73ff

The Incidence of Mental Illness in Early Motherhood in a Population-Based Survey

2011· article· en· W2328776929 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalie Mota, Murray W. Enns, Jitender Sareen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental illnessOdds ratioMedicinePsychiatryMental healthPopulationPostpartum periodAlcohol use disorderPregnancyAlcoholInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the risk of mental disorders within the first 3 postpartum years in a nationally representative sample and the sociodemographic risk factors for mental illness in early motherhood. Women aged 18 to 55 years were asked, "Are you pregnant at this time?" at baseline. A total of 13,839 women answered, with 365 of these women reporting pregnancy. Mental disorders were assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-IV version. After adjusting for sociodemographics, postpartum women were found to be at lower risk than non-postpartum women for having several first onset mental disorders (adjusted odds ratio range: 0.49-0.58). Postpartum women with a history of mental illness were at lower risk for the onset of any mental disorder (adjusted odds ratio: 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.91). No sociodemographic correlates of mental disorders were identified. Clinicians should be aware of these findings when counseling women about mental disorder risk postbirth.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207