Prevalence of depression in Type 1 diabetes and the problem of over‐diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To determine the prevalence of depression and diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes and the rate of false‐positives when compared with rates of major depressive disorder. Methods The sample consisted of 368 individuals with Type 1 diabetes, aged > 19 years. Individuals completed: the eight‐item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ8), which was coded using four scoring criteria (scores > 10, > 12 and > 15, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 ( DSM ) algorithm scores); the Type 1 Diabetes Distress Scale; and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders (SCID) to assess major depressive disorder. Results The prevalence rates of depression according to the eight‐item Patient Health Questionnaire were: score > 10, 11.4%; score > 12, 7.1%; score > 15, 3.8%; and positive algorithm result, 4.6%. The prevalence of major depressive disorder was 3.5%; and the prevalence of at least moderate diabetes distress was 42.1%. Depending on the criterion used, the false‐positive rate when using the Patient Health Questionnaire compared with the results when using the SCID varied from 52 to 71%. Of those classified as depressed on the PHQ ‐8 or Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders, between 92.3 and 96.2% also reported elevated diabetes distress. No significant association was found between any group classed as having depression according to the PHQ8 or the SCID and HbA 1c concentration. Depression was significantly associated with more other life stress, more complications and a lower level of education. Conclusions We found an unexpectedly low rate of current depression and major depressive disorder in this diverse sample of adults with Type 1 diabetes, and a very high rate of false‐positive results using the Patient Health Questionnaire. Considering the high prevalence of diabetes distress, much of what has been considered depression in adults with Type 1 diabetes may be attributed to the emotional distress associated with managing a demanding chronic disease and other life stressors and not necessarily to underlying psychopathology.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".