MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Core symptoms of major depressive disorder: relevance to diagnosis and treatment

2008· article· en· W136483523 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogues in Clinical Neuroscience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodPsychologyAnxietyPsychiatryClinical psychologySleep disorderDepression (economics)Dysfunctional familyMajor depressive disorderNeurocognitiveMood disordersInsomniaCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construct of major depressive disorder makes no etiological assumptions about populations with diverse symptom clusters. "Depressed mood" and "loss of interest or pleasure in nearly all activities" are core features of major depressive episode, though a strong case can be made to pay increasing attention to symptoms of fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and neurocognitive and sexual dysfunction in the diagnosis and evaluation of treatment outcome. Mood, guilt, work, and interest, as well as psychic anxiety, are consistently identified across validated subscales of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as prevalent and sensitive to change with existing treatments. A major limitation of these antidepressant therapies is their narrow spectrum of action. While the core "mood and interest" symptoms have been the main focus of attention, the associated symptoms listed above are often unaffected or exacerbated by current treatments. Careful clinical evaluation should address all of these dimensions, recognizing that improvement may occur sooner in some symptoms (eg, mood) compared with others (eg, sleep disturbance).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.244 · 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