Association between painful physical symptoms and clinical outcomes in East Asian patients with major depressive disorder: a 3-month prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Reports from non-Asian populations indicate that painful physical symptoms (PPS) are associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD). The purpose of this study is to report comparative changes in disease severity, treatment patterns and quality of life observed in East Asian patients with MDD, with and without PPS, as assessed prospectively over a 3-month observation period. METHODS: This observational study enrolled 909 patients with MDD in psychiatric care settings in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. Patients were classified as PPS positive (PPS+) or negative (PPS-) based on mean modified Somatic Symptom Inventory scores of >or= 2 or < 2 respectively. The Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD(17)) determined depression severity; a visual analogue scale (VAS) determined pain severity; and the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) assessed well-being after 3 months observation. RESULTS: Of the 909 enrollees, 355/471 (75.4%) of PPS+ patients and 363/438 (82.9%) of PPS- patients completed the study (p = 0.006). PPS+ patients improved less than PPS- patients on depression, pain and quality of life measures during the study (HAMD(17) p < 0.001, CGI-S p < 0.001, VAS p = 0.008 and EQ-5D p = 0.004). Fewer PPS+ patients (46.5%) achieved remission compared with PPS- patients (69.4%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As the presence of PPS is associated with poorer outcomes in East Asian MDD patients, clinical management should aim to address both the mental and PPS associated with MDD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".