Tracking pregnant women’s mental health through social media: an analysis of reddit posts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Present an artificial intelligence-enabled pipeline for estimating the prevalence of depression and general anxiety among pregnant women using texts from their social media posts. Use said pipeline to analyze mental health trends on subreddits frequented by pregnant women and report on interesting insights that could be helpful for policy-makers, clinicians, etc. Materials and methods: We used pretrained transformer-based models to build a natural language processing pipeline that can automatically detect depressed pregnant women on social media and carry out topic modeling to detect their concerns. Results: We detected depressed posts by pregnant women on Reddit and validated the performance of the depression classification model by carrying out topic modeling to reveal that depressive topics were detected. The proportion of potentially depressed surprisingly reduced during the pandemic (2020 and 2021). Queries related to antidepressants, such as Zoloft, and potential ways of managing mental health dominated discourse before the pandemic (2018 and 2019), whereas queries about pelvic pain and associated stress dominated the discourse during the pandemic. Discussion and Conclusion: Supportive online communities could be a factor in alleviating stress related to the pandemic, hence the reduction in the proportion of depressed users during the pandemic. Stress during the pandemic has been associated with pelvic pain among pregnant women, and this trend is confirmed through topic modeling of depressive posts during the pandemic.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it