Diagnostic Accuracy of the British Columbia Major Depression Inventory
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
The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of the British Columbia Major Depression Inventory. Participants were 62 patients with depression referred by their psychiatrist or family physician, 19 general medical outpatients with no psychiatric problems referred by their family physicians, and 49 community control subjects. Mean age for the control subjects was 50.2 yr. (SD= 11.8), and mean education was 14.6 yr. (SD=2.8). Approximately 59% were women. Mean age for the patients with depression was 41.1 yr. (SD= 12.5), and mean education was 14.6 yr. (SD=3.2). Approximately 71% were women. Scores of 9 or less are considered broadly normal. Applying this cut-off, the sensitivity of the test to detect depression was .92, and the specificity was .99. Thus, the test did not identify approximately 8% of the cases of depression, with 1.5% false positives. This inventory is a relatively new depression screening test patterned after the DSM-IV criteria for major depression. This study adds to a growing literature on the reliability, validity, and clinical usefulness of the test.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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