MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2162281221

Depression and risk of heart disease.

2008· article· en· W2162281221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Gilmour

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Heart diseasePopulationDiseaseDemographyHypertensive heart diseaseGerontologyHeart failureInternal medicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A population-based sample of 4948 men and women aged 40 or older who did not have heart disease in 1994/1995 were followed to 2006/ 2007 to determine if depression was associated with increased risk of heart disease diagnosis or death. DATA SOURCES: Data from seven cycles of the National Population Health Survey (NPHS), 1994/1995 through 2006/2007, were used for longitudinal analysis. Prevalence estimates of heart disease and depression in the population aged 40 years or older were based on the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey 1.2: Mental Health and Well-being. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: The association between depression and heart disease was analyzed with separate proportional hazards models for men and women, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and heart disease risk factors. MAIN RESULTS: Among people aged 40 or older and free of heart disease in 1994/1995, 19% of men and 15% of women had developed or died from heart disease by 2006/2007. The risk of heart disease was significantly higher for women who had depression, but not for men. When heart disease events occurring within two years of baseline were removed, depression was not significantly associated with heart disease risk among women or men.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→