Machine Learning Models for the Prediction of Postpartum Depression: Application and Comparison Based on a Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a serious public health problem. Building a predictive model for PPD using data during pregnancy can facilitate earlier identification and intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to compare the effects of four different machine learning models using data during pregnancy to predict PPD and explore which factors in the model are the most important for PPD prediction. METHODS: Information on the pregnancy period from a cohort of 508 women, including demographics, social environmental factors, and mental health, was used as predictors in the models. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score within 42 days after delivery was used as the outcome indicator. Using two feature selection methods (expert consultation and random forest-based filter feature selection [FFS-RF]) and two algorithms (support vector machine [SVM] and random forest [RF]), we developed four different machine learning PPD prediction models and compared their prediction effects. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of the two feature selection methods in terms of model prediction performance, but 10 fewer factors were selected with the FFS-RF than with the expert consultation method. The model based on SVM and FFS-RF had the best prediction effects (sensitivity=0.69, area under the curve=0.78). In the feature importance ranking output by the RF algorithm, psychological elasticity, depression during the third trimester, and income level were the most important predictors. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the expert consultation method, FFS-RF was important in dimension reduction. When the sample size is small, the SVM algorithm is suitable for predicting PPD. In the prevention of PPD, more attention should be paid to the psychological resilience of mothers.
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 | 0.039 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".