Association Between Intrapartum Epidural Use and Maternal Postpartum Depression Presenting for Medical Care: A Population-based, Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Int J Obstet Anesth. 2018;35:10–16) Postpartum depression (PPD) occurs commonly, with a prevalence of 6% to 22% reported in the medical literature. This disorder can adversely affect both the mother and infant with the most severe cases leading to self-harm, suicide and rarely even infanticide. However, many women suffering from PPD do not seek help from medical professionals, so the disorder is underreported. In fact, there are some initiatives underway that recommend mandatory screening for PPD. Over the past few years, there have been several studies published that evaluated the association between the use of epidural labor analgesia and the development of PPD. The results have been conflicting, however, with some reporting a decreased risk in women who received epidural analgesia and others reporting no effect or an increased risk. This current retrospective, population-based, matched cohort study aimed to determine whether intrapartum epidural use was associated with postpartum women seeking care for PPD while accounting for maternal and neonatal characteristics that could also affect the development of PPD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".