MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891287863 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmy025

The psychological impact of early pregnancy loss

2018· review· en· W2891287863 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustImperial College LondonImperial College Healthcare Charity
KeywordsPregnancyEarly Pregnancy LossMiscarriageObstetricsPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyAbortionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early pregnancy loss (EPL) is a common event, with scope for long-term personal and societal impact. There are three decades worth of published evidence of profound psychological sequelae in a significant proportion of women. However, the wide variety of outcomes, screening instruments, assessment timings and geographical locations makes it challenging to form a coherent picture of the morbidity within the whole group and its subgroups. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review aims to investigate three questions. (1) What is the evidence for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy in women and/or their partners? (2) What is the intensity and duration of these conditions, and how do they compare to those without losses? (3) Which patients have been found to be at highest risk of psychopathology? Answers to these questions are salient not only in day-to-day clinical interactions with those experiencing EPL, whose psychological needs may not be prioritized, but should also form the basis for tailoring healthcare policy in terms of screening for and treating the associated psychological morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched, from the start of each database up to July 2017: MEDLINE (Ovid interface, 1948 onwards), Embase classic + Embase (Ovid interface, 1947 onwards), and PsychINFO (Ovid interface, 1806 onwards). Search strategies were developed using medical subject headings (MeSH). The concepts of psychological morbidity (anxiety, depression or PTSD) and pregnancy loss (miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy) were first expanded with the Boolean operator 'or', then linked together using 'and'. Included studies were of prospective cohort design, including women or men following EPL (with the majority to have experienced losses before 24 weeks gestation), and reporting standardized psychometric measures for anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The timing of follow-up had to be specified and standardized across participants. Manuscript quality and risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. OUTCOMES: We found evidence of significant depression and anxiety in the first month following EPL in women. Partners were also shown to display depression and anxiety, albeit to a generally lower level. There is also evidence of post-traumatic stress symptoms relating to the EPL in three studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In view of their high frequency, EPLs can significantly contribute to the overall burden of psychopathology within a population. Recognition of this impact is important, so that severely affected individuals may be screened and treated appropriately. Further research to establish risk factors to promptly identify and treat these patients, and to optimize their management, is crucial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it