High Prevalence and Incidence of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Among Women Across Pregnancy and the Postpartum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the perinatal period, women are at an increased risk for the onset/exacerbation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and may experience perinatal-specific obsessions and/or compulsions. Past research has provided preliminary findings regarding the prevalence of OCD in the perinatal period but has often reported limited metrics and ignored perinatal specific symptoms. This research aimed to assess the prevalence and incidence of maternal OCD between the third trimester in pregnancy and 6 months postpartum. diagnostic criteria. A weighted prenatal period prevalence of 7.8% and a postpartum period prevalence of 16.9% were found. The average, prenatal, point prevalence estimate was 2.9%, and the average, postpartum, point prevalence estimate was 7.0%. Point prevalence gradually increased over the course of pregnancy and the early postpartum, attaining a peak of close to 9% at approximately 8 weeks postpartum, with a gradual decline thereafter. The cumulative incidence of new OCD diagnoses was estimated at 9% by 6 months postpartum. Our study suggests that when women are encouraged to report their perinatal-specific symptoms, and current diagnostic criteria are applied, estimates for perinatal OCD may be higher than previously believed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".