Assessment and treatment of depression in patients with cardiovascular disease: National heart, lung, and blood institute working group report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an interdisciplinary working group of experts to develop recommendations for the assessment and treatment of depression in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Method Consensus of experts. Results Our current recommendations are that the Beck Depression Inventory-I be employed for epidemiological studies of depression and CHD, that the Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item version be employed for screening for trial eligibility, that the Depression Interview and Structured Hamilton (DISH) be employed for diagnostic ascertainment for trial inclusion, and that the Hamilton rating scale, which is part of the DISH, be employed for both depression symptom reduction and the remission criterion in any trial. We further recommend that a randomized controlled trial be undertaken to determine whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, psychotherapy, or combined treatment can reduce the risk of CHD events and mortality associated with depression in CHD patients. Conclusions This report summarizes the recommendations made by the working group and discusses the rationale for each recommendation, the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches to assessment and treatment, and the implications for future research in this area.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it