Association between painful physical symptoms and clinical outcomes in Taiwanese patients with major depressive disorder: A three‐month observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Reports from non‐Asian populations indicate that painful physical symptoms are associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). This paper shows the changes in disease characteristics and quality of life in Taiwanese MDD patients, with or without painful physical symptoms, over 3 months' observation. Methods: Taiwanese patients from an observational study of six East Asian countries/regions were classified as painful physical symptom positive (PPS+) or negative (PPS−) based on a mean score of ≥2 or <2, respectively, on the modified Somatic Symptom Inventory. Changes from baseline in outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: Of 194 patients with MDD, 69% were PPS+ at baseline. These PPS+ patients were more depressed (17‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total; mean [SD] 27.1 [6.26] versus 21.8 [5.94] PPS−, P<0.001), in more pain (Visual Analog Scale overall; median [range] 73.5 [9–100] versus 40 [0 to 80] PPS−, P<0.001) and had poorer quality of life at baseline (EuroQoL; mean [SD] 42.9 [18.26] versus 59.8 [18.21] PPS−,P<0.001). At endpoint (n=118), PPS− patients showed greater improvement on depression outcomes (Clinical Global Impression of Severity; P=0.011) and had a higher remission rate (52.8 % versus 14.6% PPS+, P=0.007). Discussion: Painful physical symptoms were frequently observed in Taiwanese patients with MDD. As PPS are associated with more severe depression, poorer quality of life, and poorer remission outcomes, clinical management should address both the mental and physical symptoms associated with this disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".