Oral contraceptive use in adolescence predicts lasting vulnerability to depression in adulthood
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that use of oral contraceptives (OCs), especially during adolescence, may increase women's vulnerability to depression in the short term. Here, we investigate whether women who had first used OC in adolescence show an increased prevalence of depression in the long term. METHODS: We examined 1,236 women in the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for whom information on depression and age at first OC use was publicly available. We compared women who reported first use of OCs in adolescence to women who had never used OCs and women who had first used OCs in adulthood on 1-year prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) assessed by trained interviewers. RESULTS: Compared with women who had used OCs during adolescence, women who had never used OCs were less likely to meet the criteria for MDD within the past year in adulthood [odds ratio (OR) = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.16-0.60], and so were women who only started using OCs in adulthood (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.30-0.95). Third factors that have previously been proposed to explain the relationship between OC use and depression risk such as age at sexual debut, and, importantly, current OC use, did not account for the results in propensity score analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We show a long-term association between adolescent OC use and depression risk in adulthood regardless of current OC use. Our findings suggest that adolescence may be a sensitive period during which OC use could increase women's risk for depression, years after first exposure.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it