Increased risk of depression in COPD patients with higher education and income
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined potential modifying effects of income and education on the relationship between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and depression. The analysis was based on 44,963 Canadians aged 35 years or more who participated in the Canadian National Population Health Survey in 1996-1997. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between prevalence of depression and COPD according to sex, income adequacy or educational level. We used a bootstrap procedure to take sampling weights and design effects into account. People with COPD had twice the prevalence of depression compared to those without COPD. The association tended to be stronger in well-educated men [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04, 8.75] and women (OR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.55, 4.38) than those less educated (men: OR= 1.19, 95% CI = 0.47, 3.05; women: OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 0.96, 3.87). An increased prevalence of depression associated with COPD was also found in women with higher household income (adjusted odds ratio = 4.57, 95% CI = 2.27, 9.19) than those with lower income. However, this pattern was not found in men. In conclusion, COPD patients with higher education are more likely to be depressed. The modifying effect of income may vary by gender. Possible reasons for these findings are explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".