MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002061427 · doi:10.1017/s0033291711002066

Is depression a chronic mental illness?

2011· editorial· en· W2002061427 on OpenAlexaff
Scott M. Monroe, Kate L. Harkness

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Medicine · 2011
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)PsychiatryPsychologyChronic depressionMental illnessClinical psychologyMedicineMental healthCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few decades, theory and research on depression have increasingly focused on the recurrent and chronic nature of the disorder. These recurrent and chronic forms of depression are extremely important to study, as they may account for the bulk of the burden associated with the disorder. Paradoxically, however, research focusing on depression as a recurrent condition has generally failed to reveal any useful early indicators of risk for recurrence. We suggest that this present impasse is due to the lack of recognition that depression can also be an acute, time-limited condition. We argue that individuals with acute, single lifetime episodes of depression have been systematically eclipsed from the research agenda, thereby effectively preventing the discovery of factors that may predict who, after experiencing a first lifetime episode of depression, goes on to have a recurrent or chronic clinical course. Greater awareness of the high prevalence of people with a single lifetime episode of depression, and the development of research designs that identify these individuals and allow comparisons with those who have recurrent forms of the disorder, could yield substantial gains in understanding the lifetime pathology of this devastating mental 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0130.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations57
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MedicineSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207