Cognitive factors and post‐partum depression: <scp>W</scp>hat is the influence of general personality traits, rumination, maternal self‐esteem, and alexithymia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the impact of cognitive factors on post-partum depression (PPD) symptoms. Because most of the literature data concern the immediate post-partum period or the first year post-partum, we notably sought to assess the longer term impact of cognitive factors on the symptoms of PPD. METHODS: Two studies were performed. In a pilot study, 1-month post-partum, 63 women filled out a sociodemographic information sheet and completed the abbreviated, revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, the Ruminative Responses Scale, the Maternal Self-Report Inventory, and the Edinburgh Post-Natal Depression Scale. In the main study, 124 women additionally completed the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The main study population was divided into 2 subgroups: women in the first year post-partum (n = 74) and those in the second year post-partum (n = 50). RESULTS: In the pilot study performed 1-month post-partum, brooding rumination and low self-esteem were significant predictors of the PPD symptom intensity. Neuroticism, brooding rumination, and low maternal self-esteem were also significant predictors of the PPD symptoms reported in the first year post-partum. Lastly, ruminative thoughts and alexithymia were significant predictors of the PPD symptoms reported in the second year post-partum. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that alexithymia may be an important predictor of the incidence of this condition. The observation of differences in the PPD models as a function of the post-partum period may open up opportunities for developing novel PPD prevention/treatment programs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".