MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107480122 · doi:10.1177/1352458508099477

The burden of mental comorbidity in multiple sclerosis: frequent, underdiagnosed, and undertreated

2009· article· en· W2107480122 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Ann Marrie, Ralph I. Horwitz, Gary Cutter, Tuula Tyry, Denise I. Campagnolo, Timothy Vollmer

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisComorbidityMedicineMEDLINEPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mental comorbidity is common in multiple sclerosis (MS), but some studies suggest that mental comorbidity may be underrecognized and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: Using the North American Research Committee on MS Registry, we assessed the frequency of mental comorbidities in MS and sociodemographic characteristics associated with diagnosis and treatment of depression. METHODS: We queried participants regarding depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD); a score>or=21 indicated probable major depression. RESULTS: Mental comorbidity affected 4264 (48%) responders; depression most frequently (4012, 46%). Among participants not reporting mental comorbidity, 751 (16.2%) had CESD scores>or=21 suggesting undiagnosed depression. Lower socioeconomic status was associated with increased odds of depression (Income $15,000-30,000 vs >$100,000 OR 1.34; 1.11-1.62), undiagnosed depression (Income $15,000-30,000 vs >$100,000 OR 1.52; 1.08-2.13), and untreated depression (

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations222
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207