MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338620680 · doi:10.1176/appi.focus.20150040

Deconstructing Diabetes and Depression: Clinical Context, Treatment Strategies, and New Directions

2016· article· en· W2338620680 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Gregory, Joshua D. Rosenblat, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Diabetes mellitusContext (archaeology)GlycemicMedicineInsulin resistancePsychological interventionPsychosocialType 2 diabetesMoodPsychiatryEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression and diabetes are common, chronic, and frequently comorbid diseases that contribute substantially to global disability and mortality. Their relationship is bidirectional: depression increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and diabetes increases the risk of depression. Unhealthy lifestyles and poor self-care by patients with depression contribute to the increased T2DM risk. The psychosocial burden of a diabetes diagnosis and its eventual complications predispose diabetic patients to depressive symptoms. Neuroendocrine alterations and inflammation may underlie the increased risk of T2DM in depression but are also proposed as common causative factors for both illnesses. Screening for depression is essential in T2DM, and vice versa. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors effectively treat depression of patients with diabetes and positively influence glycemic control. Psychological interventions are effective for depressive symptoms, but their effect on glycemic control varies. Novel depression interventions targeting inflammation or insulin resistance underscore the common biological underpinnings of mood and metabolism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFOCUS The Journal of Lifelong Learning in PsychiatrySame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207