Memory and affective changes during the antepartum: A narrative review and integrative hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Many women report diminished memory function during the second or third trimesters of pregnancy, but objective neuropsychological tests often fail to show any decrement in performance. The present paper systematically reviews published studies that have investigated this phenomenon over the past 25 years and considers newer studies showing that affective changes occur during gestation in a subset of pregnant women. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted to identify articles relevant to pregnancy and memory function. Articles published since 1990 that included a nonpregnant comparison group were retained for review. RESULTS: A literature review of studies using objective memory testing suggests that a mild antepartum decline in explicit verbal recall occurs in some women. There is little empirical support for objective changes in semantic or implicit memory during pregnancy. Findings for working memory are mixed, with evidence supporting both decrements and enhancements. Inconsistencies in the literature potentially reflect a moderating influence of pregnancy-linked depressive affect on cognitive performance, not simply domain specificity, as previously suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Diminished memory function may occur in a specific subset of pregnant women who display depressive symptoms associated with pregnancy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".