MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976641624 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000209

Prevalence of Depression among Households in Three Capital Cities of Pakistan: Need to Revise the Mental Health Policy

2007· article· en· W1976641624 on OpenAlexaff
Amin A. Muhammad Gadit, Gerry Mugford

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Mental healthSocial capitalDemographyPrevalenceCross-sectional studyGeographyGovernment (linguistics)MedicineDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsPsychiatryPopulationEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pakistan, among the other developing countries, has a higher prevalence rate of depression because of the current social adversities. There is, thus, a great need for systematic studies on prevalence of depression. The current study aims at exploring the prevalence of depression among households in three capital cities of Pakistan. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A sample of N = 820 was randomly selected, and a cross sectional telephone-based study was conducted for a duration of six months. It was found that there was a regional variation in prevalence rates for depression among the three cities. Lahore had the highest number of depressives (53.4%), as compared to Quetta (43.9%) and Karachi (35.7%). Middle age, female gender and secondary school level of education were significantly associated with depression among the study group. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The different rates of prevalence among the three cities could be attributed to local cultural influence, geographical locations and social adversities. There is a need for revision of existing health policy by the government.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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

Citations98
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207