MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473859766 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14180

Psychological morbidity associated with hyperemesis gravidarum: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2016· review· en· W2473859766 on OpenAlex
N. Mitchell‐Jones, Ioannis Gallos, J. Farren, Aurelio Tobı́as, Cecilia Bottomley, T. Bourne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustImperial College London
KeywordsMeta-analysisHyperemesis gravidarumAnxietyMedicineNauseaStrictly standardized mean differenceInternal medicineDepression (economics)MEDLINEClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Psychological illness occurring in association with hyperemesis gravidarum ( HG ) has been widely reported. Objective To determine if there is a higher incidence of psychological morbidity in women with HG compared with women without significant nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Search strategy PubMed, MEDLINE , Embase and Psych INFO were searched up to September 2015. Selection criteria Articles referring to psychological morbidity in relation to HG . For meta‐analysis case–control studies using numerical scales to compare psychological symptoms. Data collection and analysis Articles were independently assessed for inclusion by two reviewers and methodology was appraised using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Comparison was made using the standard mean difference ( SMD ) in symptom scale scores. Main results In all, 59 articles were included in the systematic review, 12 of these were used in the meta‐analysis. Meta‐analysis of depression scale scores demonstrated a very large effect with statistically significantly higher depression scale scores in women with HG ( SMD 1.22; 95% CI 0.80–1.64; P ≤ 0.01) compared with controls. Meta‐analysis of anxiety scores demonstrated a large effect with statistically significantly higher anxiety disorder scale scores in women with HG ( SMD 0.86; 95% CI 0.53–1.19; P ≤ 0.01). In both analyses significant heterogeneity was identified (depression and HG I 2 = 94%, P ≤ 0.01; anxiety and HG I 2 = 84%, P = 0.02). Conclusions Our systematic review and meta‐analysis have shown a significantly increased frequency of depression and anxiety in women with HG . The findings should prompt service development for women with HG that includes provision of psychological care and support. Tweetable abstract Meta‐analysis demonstrates an increase in #PsychologicalMorbidity in women with #HyperemesisGravidarum

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.296 · 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