Thyroid function and the natural history of depression: findings from the Caerphilly Prospective Study (CaPS) and a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Low thyroid function has been associated with depression in clinical populations. We have examined whether thyroid function in the normal range is associated with minor psychiatric morbidity. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 2269 middle aged men (45-59 years) with thyroid function (total T(4) only, TSH unavailable) measured between 1979 and 1983 and with repeat measures of minor psychiatric morbidity (GHQ-30) over a mean of 12.3 years follow-up. We also undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies examining thyroid function and mood. RESULTS: There was a positive association between total T(4) and chronic psychiatric morbidity (odds ratio 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.43, P= 0.03), but this was consistent with chance after adjusting for social class, alcohol and smoking behaviours. The association with incident and recovery from psychiatric morbidity was weaker and consistent with chance. We identified seven eligible studies, from our systematic review and included six studies, including our own, in a meta-analysis. The pooled estimate showed a positive association (odds ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.02-1.22, P-value = 0.01) between depression and T(4) and an inverse association with TSH (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97, P= 0.0007) with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. CONCLUSION: The results from CaPS and our meta-analysis are consistent and suggest that, if anything, higher levels of thyroxine in the normal range are associated with increased risk of depression. The effects of thyroid hormone on mood may differ in normal populations and patients with clinical thyroid dysfunction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".