MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W203077530 · doi:10.1177/070674370104600507

A Prospective Study of Sex-Specific Effects of Major Depression on Alcohol Consumption

2001· article· en· W203077530 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
JianLi Wang, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Alcohol consumptionPsychologyConsumption (sociology)PsychiatryProspective cohort studyClinical psychologyMedicineAlcoholEnvironmental healthInternal medicineSociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of major depression on alcohol use in the Canadian general population. METHOD: This study was based on a 2-year follow-up of the Canadian National Population Health Survey (NPHS) longitudinal cohort. Subjects reporting various patterns of drinking, with and without major depression, were selected using the 1994-95 NPHS data. Data collected during a reevaluation of these subjects 2 years later were analyzed to determine whether having major depression at the 1994-95 interview predicted subsequent changes in drinking patterns. RESULTS: Subjects who were depressed in 1994-95 were generally not at higher risk of starting drinking or drinking more frequently than once a week. However, women who were depressed, especially those who were 19 years old or older, were at higher risk of having 5 or more drinks at least once monthly. CONCLUSION: These results confirm that mood disorders can impact on alcohol consumption in women. A component of the well-known association between alcohol consumption and major depression is due to "reverse" causal effects. Proper management of depression in women may contribute to the prevention of problem drinking.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207