Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Can J Psychiatry 2008;53(1):3-5 Research on the relation between personality and depression seems to have generated at least as much heat as light as these reviews neatly summarize. Authors of the first article, Dr Jane Foster and Dr Glenda MacQueen,1 point out that it is unclear whether neuroscience has advanced to the point where useful comments on the biological underpinnings of complex traits such as personality can be made, let alone the relation of these traits to depression. In the second article, Dr R Michael Bagby and coauthors2 remind us of the limitations of personality disorder as categories, question their stability over time, and adroitly discuss the many confounders around the relation of personality to depression. The question becomes: Why bother? The answer lies in the potential of the relation to assist us with understanding the etiology of depression and in helping to optimize treatment of depression2 fundamental issues doctors would like to know about any illness. Background Interest in the relation between personality and depression is not new. Ancient classifications focused on temperament with depression largely considered an epiphenomenon. Melancholic temperament was associated with individuals who were moody, pessimistic, and vulnerable to episodic depression. A neurobiological explanation was even offered: an excess of black bile. The idea that personality is intimately tied up with psychopathology has persisted. Kraepelin postulated that a cyclothymic disposition inclined patients to manic-depressive insanity, while Kretschmer considered that cycloids were a forme fruste of manic-depressive psychosis. Psychoanalysts believed that patients with depression had undue interpersonal dependency, obsessionality, and labile self-esteem.3 More recent attempts to classify depression have frequently incorporated personality variables and often attempted to link them to treatment response. Eysenck claimed that psychotic and neurotic depression were related to the underlying personality dimensions of psychoticism and neuroticism.4 Paykel produced a depressive typology with 4 categories: anxious depressives, hostile depressives, young depressives with personality disorder, and psychotic depressives. He reported that the subtypes had a differential response to amitriptlyline.5 Winokur et al6 introduced the concept of depressive spectrum disease defined by the presence of alcoholism or antisocial personality disorder in first-degree relatives. Such patients were deemed less amenable to traditional treatments for depression. Akiskal's typology is outlined by Bagby et al,2 but again links personality, depression, and treatment response. Personality Disorders and Personality Traits In 1980, the separation of personality disorder and depression in DSM-III largely stopped the incorporation of personality variables in the classification of depression. Personality pathology was now seen as a comorbid disorder with its own axis. The view appeared to be that simply diagnosing each disorder was the best conceptualization. This separation, while stimulating research, has also led to stagnation and apparent endless speculation on how common personality disorders are in depressed patients (generally conceded to be very common) and what types of personality disorder are most frequent (this varies depending on the sample studied). In my view, personality disorder categories are so flawed and overlapping that the argument is barely worth pursuing. Similarly, studying the neurobiology and genetics of such flawed phenotypes are unlikely to yield useful results. Interest has therefore increasingly turned to personality traits associated with depression, particularly neuroticism or harm avoidance and negative emotionality. Here the evidence is more consistent. Bagby et al2 conclude that empirical work consistently demonstrates that depressed individuals exhibit elevated scores on neuroticism and have higher negative emotionality. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,041 | 0,047 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».