P2-S1.04 Associations of symptoms of depression with multiple sexual risk behaviours in Nova Scotia adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background While depression is associated with sexual risk taking in adolescents, Canadian studies are few, many studies have not controlled for other risk factors, and none has examined associations of depression with having multiple sexual risks. We tested associations between multiple sexual risk taking and risk of depression while controlling for other salient factors in high school students in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods We surveyed sexually active male (n=418) and females (n=467) adolescents aged 15–19. Participants were asked about their risk of depression, perception of trust and helpfulness at school (social capital), sexual behaviours, substance use and sociodemographic factors. Logistic regressions were carried out to determine associations of depression with various levels of sexual risk-taking (none, one or two or more). Results In unadjusted models depression predicted having two or more vs no sexual risk behaviours among both males and females. After controlling for other variables risk of depression remained significantly associated with having two or more sexual risks vs no risks for both males and females [RR Ratios 2.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 4) and 3.5 (95% CI 1.6 to 7.82) respectively] and in relation to one vs no risks for females (RRR=1.9; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.5). Conclusions These consistent and independent associations of depression risk with multiple sexual risk-taking behaviours should lead healthcare workers interacting with adolescents to consider asking about sexual risk behaviours or testing for sexually transmitted infections among patients showing symptoms of depression. Alternatively, patients engaging in sexually risk taking might be screened for depression. Abstract P2-S1.04 Table 1 Adjusted multinomial regression of cumulative sexual risk-taking, depression risk and other correlates for males and females (RRs and 95% CI's) One sexual risk vs no sexual risks Two or more sexual risks vs no sexual risks Two or more sexual risks vs one sexual risk Females (n=418) Males (n=382) Females (n=418) Males (n=382) Females (n=418) Males (n=382) Alcohol binge ≥3 times in past month 1.7 (1.0 to 3.2)* 1.6 (0.9 to 3.2) 3.5 (2.0 to 6.4)‡ 5.3 (2.9 to 9.6)‡ 2.0 (1.2 to 3.5)*** 3.3 (1.9 to 5.8)*** Marijuana use ≥3 times past month 3.2 (1.5 to 7.0)† 1.2 (0.6 to 2.5) 3.6 (1.7 to 7.7)‡ 3.5 (1.9 to 6.7)‡ 1.1 (0.6 to 2.0) 2.9 (1.6 to 5.4)*** Not living with both parents 0.7 (0.4 to 1.2) 0.9 (0.5 to 1.7) 1.1 (0.6 to 1.8) 1.2 (0.7 to 2.2) 1.6 (0.9 to 2.7) 1.3 (0.7 to 2.4) Lower family wealth 0.26 (0.1 to 0.8)* 0.9 (0.3 to 2.9) 0.7 (0.3 to 1.6) 0.6 (0.2 to 1.8) 2.8 (0.8 to 9.0) 0.6 (0.2 to 1.6) First vaginal sex at age <15 1.8 (0.9 to 3.6) 1.3 (0.6 to 2.6) 5.1 (2.6 to 9.9)‡ 1.1 (0.6 to 2.2) 2.8 (1.5 to 5.2)*** 0.9 (0.5 to 1.6) Last partner>2 years older 1.0 (0.6 to 1.7) 0.7 (0.2 to 2.4) 0.8 (0.5 to 1.4) 1.6 (0.6 to 4.3) 0.8 (0.5 to 1.4) 2.3 (0.7 to 7.3) Average school grade <80% 1.2 (0.7 to 2.0) 2.0 (1.1 to 3.6)* 1.6 (0.9 to 2.8) 2.4 (1.3 to 4.4)† 1.4 (0.9 to 2.3) 1.2 (0.6 to 2.3) Low perceived trust 1.5 (0.9 to 2.7) 1.4 (0.7 to 2.9) 2.0 (1.1 to 3.7)* 1.2 (0.6 to 21) 1.3 (0.7 to 2.3) 0.78 (0.4 to 1.4) Low perceived helpfulness 1.1 (0.7 to 2.0) 1.0 (0.4 to 1.9) 1.5 (0.9 to 2.6) 1.5 (0.7 to 2.9) 1.3 (0.7 to 2.2) 1.6 (0.8 to 3.1) Depression risk positive screen 1.9 (1.1 to 3.5)* 2.0 (0.8 to 4.8) 2.5 (1.4 to 4.5)‡ 3.5 (1.6 to 7.82)‡ 1.3 (0.7 to 2.4) 1.6 (0.8 to 3.3)
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.002 |
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.
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".