Major Depression and Quality of Life in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the Quality of Life (QOL) of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with and without lifetime major depression. METHOD: Data on 136 MS subjects sampled from the University of Calgary MS Clinic were collected. The WHO's Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) was used to diagnose lifetime major depression. The MSQOL-54 was administered to evaluate QOL of the subjects. RESULTS: Thirty one (22.8 percent) of the 136 MS subjects had lifetime major depression, However, only 6 of these had a current episode at the time of data collection. MS patients with lifetime major depression had significantly lower MSQOL-54 scores in the QOL domains of Energy, Mental Health, Cognitive Function, General Quality of Life, Sexual Function, and Role Limitation-Emotional than the MS patients without lifetime major depression. CONCLUSIONS: Lifetime major depression may have a substantial impact on the QOL of people with MS. Alternatively, MS patients with poor QOL may be at greater risk of major depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".