Validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale as a screening instrument of major depressive disorder among Japanese workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is used at workplaces to screen depressive disorders. The aim of this study was to examine the validity of the CES-D for depression in a workplace. METHODS: The CES-D was administered to 2,219 workers (84.2% men; age 21-68 years) at a manufacturing company in Japan. Concomitantly all workers had an interview with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) as a gold standard for diagnosing major depressive disorder (MDD). The validity was evaluated by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve of the CES-D was 0.96 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.94-0.99]. The optimal cut-off score of MDD was 19 for screening. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of CES-D is confirmed and it is a valid instrument for detecting MDD in working populations in Japan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".