MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114080475 · doi:10.1177/1352458511417835

Multiple sclerosis and depression

2011· review· en· W2114080475 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Feinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisPsychosocialDepression (economics)MedicineQuality of life (healthcare)MoodRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryClinical psychologyMindfulnessMood disordersAffect (linguistics)PsychologyAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinically significant depression can affect up to 50% of patients with multiple sclerosis over the course of their lifetime. It is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality and is regarded by patients as one of the main determinants of their quality of life. This review summarizes current perspectives relating to diagnosis, the utility of self report screening questionnaires, warning signs of suicidal intent and the biological and psychosocial variables implicated in mood change. In particular, the association between depression and structural brain abnormalities, including those derived from diffusion tensor imaging, is highlighted. Depression is treatable, as the results from randomized controlled trials of antidepressant medication, cognitive behavior therapy and mindfulness therapy, reveal. These positive findings are offset by data showing that depression in a neurological setting is often overlooked and under treated.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations335
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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