Cohort study of the depression, anxiety, and anhedonia components of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale after delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the applicability of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for identifying depressive symptoms following vaginal or cesarean delivery. METHODS: The present observational study included consecutive Italian-speaking women who underwent vaginal or cesarean deliveries of uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at term at Policlinico Abano Terme, Abano Terme, Italy, between February 1, 2014, and May 31, 2015, who completed the EPDS 2 days after delivery. EPDS scores and the depression, anxiety, and anhedonia subscale items were compared between delivery methods to identify factors predictive of high EPDS scores. RESULTS: There were 950 patients included in the analysis; 694 (73.1%) and 256 (26.9%) patients underwent vaginal and cesarean deliveries, respectively. Total EPDS scores were higher among patients who had cesarean deliveries compared with vaginal deliveries (6.95±4.80 vs 6.05±4.20; P=0.007); the depression (0.53±0.72 vs 0.37±0.65; P=0.007), anxiety (1.07±0.88 vs 1.16±0.93; P=0.021), and anhedonia (0.32±0.59 vs 0.19±0.48; P=0.009) subscale scores were all higher among patients who underwent cesarean deliveries. CONCLUSION: Women who underwent cesarean deliveries demonstrated higher EPDS scores and could be at increased risk of developing early postpartum depressive symptomatology, particularly anhedonia, anxiety, and 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".