Depression, anxiety and adjustment disorders in people with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Depression, anxiety and adjustment disorders are particularly more prevalent amongst people with intellectual disabilities (ID) than in the general population (Richards et al ., 2001; Tu & Zellweger, 1965). This is the case for most psychiatric disorders (Einfeld, 1992; Gitta & Goldberg, 1995; King et al ., 1994; Singh, et al ., 1991; Sovner and Horley, 1989; Stavrakaki and Mintsioulis, 1997; Vitello and Behar, 1992). King et al . (1994) found that the most common diagnoses in individuals with ID at the Landerman Developmental Center in California were impulse control disorders, stereotypical/habit disorders, anxiety disorders and mood disorders. In a similar study in Canada, Gitta (1995) concluded that co-existence of anxiety disorders, adjustment disorders and depression was high in people with ID. This chapter describes the main clinical aspects of depression, anxiety and adjustment disorders and considers the similarities and differences of the three conditions in people with ID. Depression The current American classification system for mental diseases (DSM-IV-TR, ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Amercian Psychiatric Association, 1994; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , American Psychiatric Association 2000)), includes two types of depressive disorders: (a) major depressive disorders, and (b) dysthymic disorders. Major depressive disorder is characterized by one or more major depressive episodes (i.e. at least two weeks of depressed mood or loss of interest). According to this classification, five or more of the following symptoms of depression must be present during the same two-week period for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be made: depressed mood most of the day markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all activities […]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".