A Role for Behavior in the Relationships Between Depression and Hostility and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence, Mortality, and All-Cause Mortality: the Prime Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavioral factors are important in disease incidence and mortality and may explain associations between mortality and various psychological traits. PURPOSE: These analyses investigated the impact of behavioral factors on the associations between depression, hostility and cardiovascular disease(CVD) incidence, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: Data from the PRIME Study (N = 6953 men) were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models, following adjustment for demographic and biological CVD risk factors, and other psychological traits, including social support. RESULTS: Following initial adjustment, both depression and hostility were significantly associated with both mortality outcomes (smallest SHR = 1.24, p < 0.001). Following adjustment for behavioral factors, all relationships were attenuated both when accounting for and not accounting for other psychological variables. Associations with all-cause mortality remained significant (smallest SHR = 1.14, p = 0.04). Of the behaviors included, the most significant contribution to outcomes was found for smoking, but a role was also found for fruit and vegetable intakes and high alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate well-known associations between depression, hostility, and mortality and suggest the potential importance of behaviors in explaining these relationships.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".