Vitamin D Deficiency and Antenatal and Postpartum Depression: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin D has been implicated in antenatal depression (AD) and postpartum depression (PPD) in many studies; however, results have been inconsistent due to the complexity of this association. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Maternity and Infant Care databases for literature addressing associations between vitamin D and AD and PPD. Two independent authors reviewed titles and abstracts of the search results and selected studies for full review. Data were extracted, and a quality rating was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on the selected studies. A total of 239 studies were identified; 14 were included in the review. The quality assessment of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Of the studies on PPD, five of nine (55%) showed a significant association between vitamin D and PPD. Five of seven (71%) studies on AD showed a significant association with vitamin D status. As the included studies used different effect estimates and statistical analyses to report the association, it was not possible to transform the existing data into one single effect measure to employ meta-analytic techniques. While results of this systematic review vary, they indicate a significant association between vitamin D status and AD and PD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".