MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394949190 · doi:10.1037/hea0000316

A bifactor model of the Beck Depression Inventory and its association with medical prognosis after myocardial infarction.

2016· review· en· W2394949190 on OpenAlexaff
Ricardo de Miranda Azevedo, Annelieke M. Roest, Robert M. Carney, Johan Denollet, Kenneth E. Freedland, Sherry L. Grace, Seyed Hamzeh Hosseini, Deirdre A. Lane, Kapil Parakh, Louise Pilote, Peter de Jonge

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Hazard ratioMedicineBeck Depression InventoryInternal medicineProportional hazards modelRisk factorMyocardial infarctionConfidence intervalPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Some of the symptoms of depression may also be symptoms of somatic illness and these may confound the association between depression and prognosis. We investigated whether depression following MI is associated with medical prognosis independent of these somatic symptoms. METHOD: The database of an individual patient data meta-analysis was used. Endpoints were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. Nine studies were included. Bifactor factor analysis included 13,100 participants and 7,595 participants were included in survival models. Dimensions were generated from the Beck Depression Inventory using factor analyses. The prognostic association was assessed using mixed-effects Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A bifactor model, consisting of a general factor and 2 general depression-free subgroup factors (a somatic/affective and a cognitive/affective), provided the best fit. There was a significant association between the general depression factor and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.17, 1.34], p < .001) and cardiovascular events (HR = 1.18; 95% CI [1.13, 1.23], p < .001). After adjustment for demographics, measures of cardiac disease severity, and health-related variables, the association between the general depression factor and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.14; 95% CI [1.04, 1.25], p = .003) and cardiovascular events (HR = 1.16; 95% CI [1.10, 1.23], p = .014) attenuated. Additionally, the general depression-free somatic/affective factor was significantly associated with the endpoints, while the general depression-free cognitive/affective was not. CONCLUSIONS: A general depression factor is associated with adverse medical prognosis following MI independent of somatic/affective symptoms that may be partly attributable to somatic illness. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.011
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.369 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207