MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W161946265 · doi:10.1177/070674370905401207

Prospective Evaluation of the Effect of Major Depression on Working Status in a Population Sample

2009· article· en· W161946265 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Scott B. Patten, JianLi Wang, Jeanne V.A. Williams, Dina H. Lavorato, Andrew G. M. Bulloch, Michael Eliasziw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDepression (economics)Sample (material)PsychologyPopulationPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Numerous surveys have reported associations between major depressive episodes (MDEs) and occupational status, but cross-sectional studies cannot quantify the risks of employment transitions nor clarify their temporal direction. The goal of our study was to estimate the impact of MDE on subsequent employment status in a longitudinal community cohort. METHODS: Data from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) were used. Proportional hazard models and logistic regression were employed to evaluate the effect of MDE on working status during the 1994 to 2004 interval among respondents who reported working at a job or business at baseline. RESULTS: MDE was associated with an increased risk of movement to nonworking status. People aged 26 to 45 years with MDEs have more than double the risk of this transition (HR = 2.6; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.6, P < 0.001). The probability of transition to nonworking status was higher, but the relative effect was smaller in people aged 46 to 65 years (HR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.0, P = 0.47). Retirement or perceived lack of availability of work did not contribute to the association. CONCLUSIONS: MDE is associated with an elevated risk of transition from working to nonworking status, especially in people aged 26 to 45 years.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207