Female infants are more susceptible to the effects of maternal antenatal depression; findings from the Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We utilised data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort, a large prospective cohort in southern Brazil, to examine the association of moderate and severe antenatal depression with child birth outcomes and explore interactions with sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: Data was available for n = 3046 participants and their infants. We measured antenatal depression using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS, ≥13 for moderate and ≥17 for severe depression). Outcome measures included gestational age, birth weight, length and head circumference, using the Intergrowth-21st standards. We controlled for known confounders including obstetric risk. RESULTS: We did not find differences in childbirth outcomes by maternal depression status for participants with at least moderate depression, although there was an increased risk for female offspring to be small for gestational age (SGA, OR 2.33[1.37,3.97]). For severe depression (EPDS≥17) we found an increased risk for lower APGAR scores (OR 1.63[1.02,2.60]) and being SGA (OR 1.77[1.06,2.97], with an increased risk for female offspring in particular to be in lower weight centiles (-10.71 [-16.83,-4.60]), to be SGA (OR 3.74[1.89, 7.44]) and in the lower 10th centile for length (OR 2.19[1.25,3.84]). LIMITATIONS: include the use of a maternal report questionnaire to ascertain depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In this recent large longitudinal cohort in Brazil we did not find independent effects of depression on adverse birth outcomes or interactions with sociodemographic characteristics. We found an increased risk of being SGA for female offspring of women with moderate and severe depression, in line with other research suggesting females may be more susceptible to antenatal disturbances. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom (095582), the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES). EN was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council GCRF Postdoctoral Fellowship (ES/P009794/1).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".