Depressive symptoms in intellectual disability: does gender play a role?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gender issues remain largely unaddressed in the dual diagnosis arena, even in the area of depression where there is a 2:1 female to male ratio in the general population. This paper argues that women with intellectual disability (ID) report higher levels of depressive symptoms than men with ID and that risk factors for depression identified for women in the general population are relevant to this group. METHOD: Findings are based on structured interviews with 99 men and women with ID, with corroborative information provided from caregivers and casebook reviews. RESULTS: Overall, women reported higher levels of depression than men. Individuals with higher depression scores were more lonely and had higher stress levels than individuals with lower scores. Women with higher depression scores were more likely to report coming from abusive situations, to have poor social support from family and to be unemployed when compared to women with lower scores, but similar differences were not found when comparing men with higher and lower depression scores. CONCLUSION: Men and women who report experiencing these psychosocial correlates of depression should be a target group for future prevention efforts, taking gender specific concerns into consideration.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.001 |
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 it