MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051603400 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v5n3p16

A Systematic Review of the Prevalence and Risk Factors of Depression among Iranian Adolescents

2013· review· en· W2051603400 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Homeira Sajjadi, Seyed Hossein Mohaqeqi Kamal, Hasan Rafiey, Meroe Vameghi, Ameneh Setareh Forouzan, Masoomeh Rezaei

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)PsychiatryMoodClinical psychologyMedicinePrevalenceMood disordersPsychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression is the most common mood and psychiatric disorder. The aim of this comprehensive study was to provide a complete picture of the prevalence and risk factors of depression. The study employed a systematic review methodology, searching Iranian and international databases. After screening and evaluating the articles, a synthesis of 53 articles was accumulated. A meta-analysis of the studies showed that the prevalence of children and adolescent depression was 43.55% using the BDI, 15.87 % using SCL-90, and 13.05% using CDI. Also, the prevalence of depression was higher among girls than boys based on the BDI and CDI results. The most important factors contributing to depression were: the female sex, poor inter-parental relationship, poor adolescent-parent relationship, low socio-economic status (SES), state of parenting styles, low level of parental education, and poor academic performance. The comparatively high prevalence of depression among Iranian adolescents call for further investigation and measures.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations96
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207