MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247280407 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-50732/v3

A potential role for insulin treatment during pregnancy in reducing postpartum psychological distress in maternal obesity: An administrative population health study

2021· preprint· en· W4247280407 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica S. Jarmasz, Alexandrea Anderson, Margaret E. Bock, Yan Jin, Peter A. Cattini, Chelsea Ruth

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyObesityDistressPsychological distressPopulationMedicineInsulinObstetricsPsychiatryPsychologyEnvironmental healthMental healthClinical psychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Studies have found an association between obesity and an increased risk for peripartum depression, which has also been linked to decreased placental lactogen levels. In addition, women with obesity treated for gestational diabetes with insulin were found to have increased levels of placental lactogen. Treatment options exist for perinatal and postpartum depression however, they pose a risk to the developing offspring. Thus, prevention as well as markers for early identification of peripartum depression are needed. Therefore, our study objective is to identify the association between insulin treatment in pregnancy and the risk of postpartum psychological distress (abbreviated here as PPD) among cohorts of women with and without obesity. Methods: Administrative health data (2002/03-2018/19) were used to identify a cohort of women (age 15+ years) who gave birth (N=250,746) and had no pre-existing mood/anxiety disorders or diabetes (N=222,863 excluded). Women were then divided into two groups: lean (N=17,975) and with obesity (N=9,908), which was identified by a recorded maternal weight of >38 - <65.6 kg and ≥85 - <186 kg (respectively). The risk of PPD within one year after delivery with and without insulin treatment was assessed by Poisson regression analysis. Models were adjusted for maternal age group (at pregnancy start date) and area-level income (at delivery). Results: The unadjusted risk of PPD was higher in the obesity group (8.56%; 95% CI 8.00 - 9.15) than in the lean group (6.93%; 95% CI 6.56 - 7.33). When no insulin treatment was given during pregnancy, mothers with obesity had a significantly higher risk of PPD than the lean group (aRR 1.27; 95% CI 1.17-1.39; p<0.0001). However, when women with obesity and insulin treatment were compared to the lean group with no insulin treatment, no significant difference in the risk of PPD was observed between the groups (aRR 1.30; 95% CI 0.83-2.02; p=0.248). Conclusion: This is the first study to demonstrate a positive association between insulin treatment in pregnancy among women with obesity and reduced PPD rates, suggesting insulin as a possible preventative measure. However, the biological mechanism behind the observed positive effect of insulin on PPD rates remains to be investigated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→