MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504574652 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069637

The Epidemiological Modelling of Major Depressive Disorder: Application for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

2013· article· en· W1504574652 on OpenAlexaff
Alize J Ferrari, Fiona Charlson, Rosana Norman, Abraham D. Flaxman, Scott B. Patten, Theo Vos, Harvey Whiteford

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsEpidemiologyMajor depressive disorderDemographyMedicineDisease burdenDiseaseStatisticsPsychiatryMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the detrimental impact of major depressive disorder (MDD) at the individual level has been described, its global epidemiology remains unclear given limitations in the data. Here we present the modelled epidemiological profile of MDD dealing with heterogeneity in the data, enforcing internal consistency between epidemiological parameters and making estimates for world regions with no empirical data. These estimates were used to quantify the burden of MDD for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010). METHOD: Analyses drew on data from our existing literature review of the epidemiology of MDD. DisMod-MR, the latest version of the generic disease modelling system redesigned as a Bayesian meta-regression tool, derived prevalence by age, year and sex for 21 regions. Prior epidemiological knowledge, study- and country-level covariates adjusted sub-optimal raw data. RESULTS: There were over 298 million cases of MDD globally at any point in time in 2010, with the highest proportion of cases occurring between 25 and 34 years. Global point prevalence was very similar across time (4.4% (95% uncertainty: 4.2-4.7%) in 1990, 4.4% (4.1-4.7%) in 2005 and 2010), but higher in females (5.5% (5.0-6.0%) compared to males (3.2% (3.0-3.6%) in 2010. Regions in conflict had higher prevalence than those with no conflict. The annual incidence of an episode of MDD followed a similar age and regional pattern to prevalence but was about one and a half times higher, consistent with an average duration of 37.7 weeks. CONCLUSION: We were able to integrate available data, including those from high quality surveys and sub-optimal studies, into a model adjusting for known methodological sources of heterogeneity. We were also able to estimate the epidemiology of MDD in regions with no available data. This informed GBD 2010 and the public health field, with a clearer understanding of the global distribution of MDD.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207