Postpartum Depression in Reproductive-Age Women With and Without Rheumatic Disease: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine postpartum depression (PPD) among women with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in comparison with a matched population without rheumatic disease (RD). METHODS: A retrospective analysis using the 2013-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was conducted. Pregnant women with axSpA, PsA, or RA were identified, and the delivery date was used as the index date. We restricted the sample to women ≤ 55 years with continuous enrollment ≥ 6 months before date of last menstrual period and throughout pregnancy. Each patient was matched with 4 individuals without RD on: (1) maternal age at delivery, (2) prior history of depression, and (3) duration of depression before delivery. Cox frailty proportional hazards models estimated the crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% CI of incident postpartum depression within 1 year among women with axSpA, PsA, or RA (axSpA/PsA/RA cohort) compared to the matched non-RD comparison group. RESULTS: Overall, 2667 women with axSpA, PsA, or RA and 10,668 patients without any RD were included. The median follow-up time in days was 256 (IQR 93-366) and 265 (IQR 99-366) for the axSpA/PsA/RA cohort and matched non-RD comparison group, respectively. Development of PPD was more common in the axSpA/PsA/RA cohort relative to the matched non-RD comparison group (axSpA/PsA/RA cohort: 17.2%; matched non-RD comparison group: 12.8%; aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36). CONCLUSION: Postpartum depression is significantly higher in women of reproductive age with axSpA/PsA/RA when compared to those without RD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".