Maternal psychological stress during pregnancy and newborn telomere length: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Telomeres protect the ends of chromosomes, and shorter leukocyte telomeres are associated with major group diseases. Maternal psychological stress may be related to the shortening of telomeres in infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to consolidate the varying effect sizes found in studies of maternal psychological stress and telomere length (TL) in newborns and identify moderators of the relationship between stress during pregnancy and newborn TL. METHODS: Our systematic review was registered in Prospero. Six databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete) were searched for records in English from inception to February 10, 2023. Observational studies were included that measured the relationship of psychological stress of the mother during pregnancy on the TL of the newborn. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A random-effect model was selected. Statistical analysis performed by Stata software version 17. RESULTS: Eight studies were included for qualitative and four for quantitative analysis. There was an inverse statistically significant relationship between maternal stress and newborn TL; A one score increase in maternal psychological stress resulted in a 0.04 decrease in the TL of the newborn (B = -0.04, 95% CI = [-0.08, 0.00], p = 0.05). Selectivity analysis showed that the pooled effect size was sensitive to one study; After removing this study, the pooled effect size remained significant (B = -0.06, 95% CI = [-0. 10, -0.02], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Physiological and environmental factors can significantly affect the TL of newborns. Our results support a significant impact of maternal psychological stress on the TL of a newborn. This association demonstrates the significance of stress in influencing the telomere length, which can be a contributing factor in the infant's future. Therefore, recognizing this association is crucial for understanding and addressing potential health risks and necessitates the need for additional future studies to validate our findings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".