Clinical and Physiological Correlates of Irritability in Depression: Results from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Irritable and nonirritable depressed patients differ on demographic and clinical characteristics. We investigated whether this extends to psychological and physiological measures. Method. We compared irritable and nonirritable unipolar depressed patients on symptomatology, personality, and (psycho)physiological measures (cortisol, cholesterol, and heart rate variability). Symptomatology was reassessed after one year, and we also compared depressed patients who were irritable or non-irritable at both time points (Irr++ versus Irr--). Results. Almost half (46%; N = 420) of the sample was classified as irritable. These patients scored higher on depression severity, anxiety, hypomanic symptoms, and psychological variables. No differences were observed on physiological markers after correction for depression severity. The same pattern was found when comparing Irr++ and Irr-- groups. Conclusion. Irritable and non-irritable depressed patients differ on clinical and psychological variables, but not on the currently investigated physiological markers. The clinical relevance of the distinction and the significance of the hypomanic symptoms remain to be demonstrated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".