A two-factor model of relapse/recurrence vulnerability in unipolar depression.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The substantial health burden associated with major depressive disorder (MDD) is a product of both its high prevalence and the significant risk of relapse, recurrence, and chronicity. Establishing recurrence vulnerability factors (VFs) could improve the long-term management of MDD by identifying the need for further intervention in seemingly recovered patients. We present a model of sensitization in depression vulnerability, with an emphasis on the integration of behavioral and neural systems accounts. Evidence suggests that VFs fall into 2 categories: dysphoric attention and dysphoric elaboration. Dysphoric attention is driven by fixation on negative life events, and is characterized behaviorally by reduced executive control, and neurally by elevated activity in the brain's salience network. Dysphoric elaboration is driven by rumination that promotes overgeneral self- and contextual appraisals, and is characterized behaviorally by dysfunctional attitudes, and neurally by elevated connectivity within normally distinct prefrontal brain networks. Although few prospective VF studies exist from which to catalogue a definitive neurobehavioral account, extant data support the value of the proposed 2-factor model. Measuring the continued presence of these 2 VFs during recovery may more accurately identify remitted patients who would benefit from targeted prophylactic intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".