MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412466155 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2025.57

‘False positive’: understanding pseudocyesis through old and new perspectives

2025· review· en· W4412466155 on OpenAlexaff
Chrishanthy Grace Jayarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyDistressMultidisciplinary approachMedicineInfertilityPsychologyClinical PracticePsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyObstetricsClinical psychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pseudocyesis, also known as false pregnancy, is defined as the belief of being pregnant with physical signs and symptoms in the absence of a confirmed pregnancy. Notable cases include Queen Mary, who suffered from phantom pregnancies under societal pressure to conceive in the 16th century. Although now extremely rare, at its peak it accounted for 1 in 250 pregnancies following the Second World War, and was thought to be linked to heightened gender norms and sociocultural expectations around motherhood during this time. Pseudocyesis presents with complex and unique diagnostic challenges in clinical practice. It differs from delusional pregnancy, which is a fixed belief of pregnancy without physical signs or symptoms. The condition is often associated with infertility, psychological distress and neuro-endocrine conditions affecting the reproductive system. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach, integrating psychological support and addressing underlying reproductive health issues.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207