History of miscarriage and postpartum depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between postpartum depression (PPD) and miscarriage history and the role of moderators. METHODS: We identified observational studies of PPD rates in women with vs. without miscarriage history in Embase and Medline in July 2023 and updated in October 2024. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR, 95 % confidence intervals [95 %CI]) of PPD in women with vs. without miscarriage history. Meta-regression analyses included the effects of age, marital status, history of depression/anxiety and parity; subgroup analyses were based on PPD assessment methods and timepoint, cohorts from low-/middle-vs. high-income countries and cohorts with single vs. multiple miscarriages. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding poor-quality, cross-sectional studies and sequentially each study. RESULTS: = 99.8 %). We detected some asymmetry in the funnel plot. The Egger's test was positive (p = 0.04). The OR using the trim-and-fill method was 0.98 (95 %CI = 0.70 to 1.37, p = 0.91). Higher miscarriage-related PPD ORs were estimated in low-/middle-vs. high-income countries (OR = 2.09, 95 %CI = 1.47 to 2.95, k = 10, n = 5,665, vs. 1.23, 95 %CI = 0.96 to 1.58, k = 9, n = 106,107, p = 0.02). After excluding low-quality studies the PPD OR dropped (1.15, 95 %CI = 0.50 to 2.64, k = 2, n = 2,911, p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Women with miscarriage history had higher PPD risk, although small study effects and low study quality may have led to an overestimation.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".