MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008630639 · doi:10.4088/jcp.11m07394

Obesity Comorbidity in Unipolar Major Depressive Disorder

2012· article· en· W2008630639 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Levitan, Caroline Davis, Allan S. Kaplan, Tamara Arenovich, D. I. W. Phillips, Arun Ravindran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtypical depressionDepression (economics)ComorbidityObesityBody mass indexOdds ratioMedicinePopulationPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyAppetite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: While a significant body of research has demonstrated high comorbidity rates between depression and obesity, the vast majority of this work has considered depression as a unitary diagnosis. Given that increased appetite and weight gain are highly characteristic of the "atypical" subtype of depression, while classic depression is characterized by decreased appetite and weight loss, it would be important to examine whether increased obesity risk is consistent across the major vegetative subtypes of depression or is limited to the atypical subtype. METHOD: Using data from the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), we identified 5,092 US adults with past or current major depression based on DSM-IV-TR criteria and 1,500 gender-matched controls. Each depressed subject was designated as having classic, atypical, or undifferentiated depression based on core vegetative symptoms. Logistic regression models examined rates of current obesity (defined as a current body mass index [kg/m2] > 30) across the 3 depressive subgroups and nondepressed controls, adjusting for demographic differences. To limit the possible effect of current depressive symptoms on observed obesity rates, secondary analyses were completed in individuals with past depression only. RESULTS: Subjects with atypical depression had markedly elevated obesity rates compared to population controls and to other depressed subjects, with corresponding pairwise odds ratios consistently greater than 2.0 (P < .001). In contrast, obesity rates were not significantly different in subjects with classic depression and nondepressed controls. These results were manifest in individuals with either current or past depression and were independent of gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: While many individuals with classic depression will present with obesity due to the high prevalence of both disorders, only atypical depression is associated with an elevated risk of obesity relative to the population at large. Refining the target phenotype(s) for future work on depression and obesity might improve our understanding, prevention, and treatment of this complex clinical problem.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations79
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207