Risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with prenatal exposure to moderate-severe depression compared with mild depression: A fellow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy is a time of increased vulnerability for the development of anxiety and depression. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of developing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between pregnant women with moderate-severe depression and those who had mild depression. Our study was performed in a prospective cohort of 360 depressed pregnant women, recruited and followed up to delivery at the Adventist Hospital in Bekwai Municipality, Ghana. The research began in February 2020 and the follow-up was completed in August 2020. The pregnant women who had depression were classified into two groups: those who had moderate-severe depression (Patient Health Questionnaires-9 (PHQ-9) score ≥15) and those who had mild depression (PHQ-9 score <15). Crude and adjusted relative risk (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for women with moderate-severe depression as compared with women with mild depression were then estimated. Out of a total of 360 pregnant women, 43 (11.9%) screened positive for moderate-severe depression. After adjusting for potential confounders, women with moderate-severe depression during pregnancy, as compared with women who had mild depression had an increased risk of pre-eclampsia (RR adjusted = 2.01; 95% CI:1.21–3.33); Caesarean section (RR adjusted = 1.78; 95% CI:1.18–2.70); and episiotomy (RR adjusted = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.06–2.60). On the other hand, no statistically significant association of severity of depression and perinatal outcomes was observed. Compared with mild depression, symptoms of moderate-severe depression in pregnancy significantly increased risks of adverse maternal outcomes such as pre-eclampsia, caesarean section delivery, and episiotomy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".