Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of research on whether minor depression is a familial disorder. METHODS: We conducted a population-based family study of minor depression in which subjects were interviewed using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS). Minor depression only (MDO) was diagnosed if there was a lifetime history of what the DIS refers to as a depressive "spell" and no lifetime history of either Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, major depression or dysthymia. There were 71 probands with a lifetime history of MDO; 577 controls with no lifetime history of MDO, major depression, or dysthymia; and 1,539 first-degree relatives (FDRs). Logistic regression was performed with the presence/absence of MDO in a proband/control as the "exposure" and MDO in an FDR as the "outcome". RESULTS: The odds ratio for the association between MDO in a proband and MDO in an FDR, after adjusting for age and sex of the FDR, was 1.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.93-2.58; P=.093). The study had 80% power to detect an odds ratio as small as 1.97, which is in the range of odds ratios seen for the familial aggregation of major depression. CONCLUSIONS: MDO does not appear to be a familial disorder, raising questions about the validity of "minor depression" as a distinct psychiatric syndrome.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".