Antidepressant exposure in pregnancy and child sensorimotor and visuospatial development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor development underlies many aspects of education and learning. There has been uncertainty about the impact of exposure of antidepressant medication in pregnancy on child motor outcomes. This paper examines whether exposure to antidepressants in utero increases the risk of poorer motor development in two areas: sensorimotor and visuospatial processing. Data were obtained from 195 women and children across 3 groups: women with untreated depression in pregnancy, women treated with antidepressants and control women. Data were collected across pregnancy, postpartum and until 4 years for mother and child. Maternal depression was established at baseline with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Antidepressant exposure, including type, dose and timing, was measured through repeated self-report across pregnancy and the postpartum, medical records at delivery and in cord blood samples collected at delivery. Child sensorimotor and visuospatial outcomes were assessed at 4 years of age with four subtests from the NEPSY-II. Our study found for sensorimotor development, visuomotor precision completion time was associated with better performance for antidepressant-exposed children compared to those with mothers with untreated depression. Yet another measure of sensorimotor development, motor manual sequences, was poorer in those exposed to antidepressants. One subtest for visuospatial processing, block construction, was associated with poorer performance in antidepressant-exposed children who had poor neonatal adaptation and those exposed to a higher dose of antidepressant. These findings suggest an inconsistent association between sensorimotor development and antidepressant use in pregnancy. However, the findings for visuospatial processing would support further exploration of antidepressant associated poor neonatal adaption and later motor development.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".