Association of comorbid mood disorders and chronic illness with disability and quality of life in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mood disorders are more prevalent in individuals with chronic physical illness compared to individuals with no such illness. These disorders amplify the disability associated with the physical condition and adversely affect its course, thus contributing to occupational impairment, disruption in interpersonal and family relationships, poor health and suicide. This study used data collected in the Canadian Community Health Survey, cycle 3.1 (2005) to examine factors associated with comorbid mood disorders and to assess their association with the quality of life of individuals living in Ontario. Results indicate that individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, bowel disorder or stomach or intestinal ulcers had the highest rates of mood disorders. The odds of having a comorbid mood disorder were higher among women, the single, those living in poverty, the Canadian born and those between 30 and 69 years of age. The presence of comorbid mood disorders was significantly associated with short-term disability, requiring help with instrumental daily activities and suicidal ideation. Health care providers are urged to proactively screen chronically ill patients for mood disorders, particularly among the subgroups found to have elevated risk for these disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".