Association between Prenatal and Postnatal Psychological Distress and Toddler Cognitive Development: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Maternal psychological distress is one of the most common perinatal complications, affecting up to 25% of pregnant and postpartum women. Research exploring the association between prenatal and postnatal distress and toddler cognitive development has not been systematically compiled. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the association between prenatal and postnatal psychological distress and toddler cognitive development. METHODS: Articles were included if: a) they were observational studies published in English; b) the exposure was prenatal or postnatal psychological distress; c) cognitive development was assessed from 13 to 36 months; d) the sample was recruited in developed countries; and e) exposed and unexposed women were included. A university-based librarian conducted a search of electronic databases (Embase, CINAHL, Eric, PsycInfo, Medline) (January, 1990-March, 2014). We searched gray literature, reference lists, and relevant journals. Two reviewers independently evaluated titles/abstracts for inclusion, and quality using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network appraisal tool for observational studies. One reviewer extracted data using a standardized form. RESULTS: Thirteen of 2448 studies were included. There is evidence of an association between prenatal and postnatal distress and cognitive development. While variable effect sizes were reported for postnatal associations, most studies reported medium effect sizes for the association between prenatal psychological distress and cognitive development. Too few studies were available to determine the influence of the timing of prenatal exposure on cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSION: Findings support the need for early identification and treatment of perinatal mental health problems as a potential strategy for optimizing toddler cognitive 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".