Adolescent oral contraceptive use and future major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Previously reported associations between oral contraceptives (OCs) use and depression have been conflicting. Insight into the impact of analytical choices on the association may help to reconcile previous heterogeneous findings. Objectives We aimed to examine the association between adolescent OC use and subsequent depression risk in early adulthood analyzing all theoretically justifiable models. Methods Women from the prospective cohort study Tracking Adolescents’ Individual Lives Survey (TRAILS) were included in this study. All justifiable associations between adolescent OC use (ages 16-19 years) and major depressive disorder (MDD) in early adulthood (ages 20-25 years) as assessed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV oriented Lifetime Depression Assessment Self-Report and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview were tested. Results A total of 818 analytical models were analyzed in 534 adolescent OC users and 191 nonusers. Overall, there was a tentative association of adolescent OC use and an episode of MDD in early adulthood (median odds ratio [OR] median =1.41; OR min =1.08; OR max =2.18, permutation testing p-value 1 = .052, and p-value 2 = .046), which was primarily driven by the group of young women with no history of MDD (OR median =1.72; OR min =1.21; OR max =2.18, both permutation testing p-values = .02). Conclusions Adolescent OC use was associated with an increased risk for experiencing an episode of MDD, but only among women with no history of MDD in adolescence. Understanding the potential side effects of OCs will help women and their doctors make informed choices when deciding among possible methods of birth control. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".