MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138307239 · doi:10.1177/070674370505001305

Comorbidity of Major Depression and Migraine — A Canadian Population-Based Study

2005· article· en· W2138307239 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Carmen V Molgat, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigraineDepression (economics)ComorbidityPsychiatryMedicinePopulationMajor depressive episodeCross-sectional studyChronic MigrainePsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of major depressive episodes (MDEs) in patients with migraine and to compare the strength of association with that of other long-term medical conditions. METHODS: This study used a large-scale probability sample (over 130,000 sample) from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), a cross-sectional survey conducted by Statistics Canada. The CCHS screened for a broad set of medical conditions. Major depression was evaluated with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form for Major Depression, and the diagnosis of migraine was self-reported. The annual prevalence of major depression was calculated in the general population, in subjects with migraine, and in those with chronic conditions other than migraine. RESULTS: The prevalence of major depression in subjects reporting migraine was higher than that in the general population or in subjects with other chronic medical conditions (17.6%, compared with 7.4% and 7.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between major depression and migraine. The migraine-MDE association may account for a large fraction of the chronic condition-MDE association. The association between migraines and MDE differs from that of other chronic conditions, as the association persists into older age groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations73
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207