MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992311941 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.2.152

Depression in Multiple Sclerosis: A Quantitative Review of the Evidence.

2005· review· en· W1992311941 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Dalton, R. Walter Heinrichs

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisDepression (economics)PsychologyDepressive symptomsConfidence intervalClinical psychologyPsychiatryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The published literature on depression in multiple sclerosis (MS) is reviewed quantitatively. The authors report mean effect sizes for 20 studies comparing depression scores of MS patients with those of healthy participants (d=1.07) and 21 studies comparing depression scores of MS patients with those of patients who have other chronic conditions (d=-0.14). The confidence interval for the mean overall MS-medical comparison included 0. However, subgroups of patients with chronic fatigue and spinal-neuromuscular conditions were more and less depressed than MS patients, respectively. Results indicate that a majority of MS patients with mild to moderate disability levels are distinguishable from healthy people in terms of depressive symptoms. However, the depression-disease link is complex and not specific to this form of demyelinating illness.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.016
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.447
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.042 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207