Relationship of postpartum depression to alexithymia and perceived social support in postpartum women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the relation between postpartum depression to alexithymia and perceived social support in postpartum women. Methods Totally 525 pregnant women were selected and followed- up. They were assessed with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale( EPDS) to evaluate postpartum depression,assessed with the 20- item Toronto Alexithymia Scale( TAS- 20)consisting of the sub- scales of Difficulty Identifying Feelings( DIF),Difficulty Describing Feelings( DDF) and Externally Oriented Thinking( EOT) to evaluate alexithymia,assessed with the Maternity Social Support Scale( MSSS) to evaluate perceived social support. Results The scores of DIF were lower in women after delivery than before[( 19. 11 ± 4. 67) vs.( 18. 14 ± 4. 46),P 0. 05]. The EPDS scores were negatively correlated with the MSSS scores( r =- 0. 39) and positively correlated with the scores of DIF,EOT,DDF( r = 0. 16 ~ 0. 37,P 0. 05) in postpartum women. Regression analysis showed that the scores of EPDS were negatively correlated with the MSSS scores( β =- 0. 42) and positively correlated with the DIF scores( β = 0. 26,P 0. 05). The path analysis showed that the MSSS score as a mediator between the TAS- 20 scores and the scores of EPDS in postpartum women( β =- 0. 33). The model fit indices were χ2/ df = 0. 909,P = 0. 436,RMSEA = 0. 009,NFI = 0. 995,RFI = 0. 983,IFI = 0. 991,TLI = 0. 971,CFI = 0. 989. Conclusion It suggests that perceived social support may play a mediating role between alexithymia and postpartum depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".