High Rates of Psychiatric Comorbidity in Narcolepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate psychiatric comorbidity patterns in patients with a narcolepsy diagnosis in the United States. METHODS: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases were accessed to identify individuals ≥ 18 years of age with ≥ 1 ICD-9 diagnosis code(s) for narcolepsy continuously insured between 2006 and 2010 and non-narcolepsy controls matched 5:1 (age, gender, region, payer). Extensive subanalyses were conducted to confirm the validity of narcolepsy definitions. Narcolepsy subjects and controls were compared for frequency of psychiatric comorbid conditions (based on ICD-9 codes/Clinical Classification Software [CCS] level 2 categories) and psychiatric medication use. RESULTS: The final population included 9,312 narcolepsy subjects and 46,559 controls (each group, mean age = 46.1 years; 59% female). All categories of mental illness were significantly more prevalent in patients with narcolepsy versus controls, with the highest excess prevalence noted for CCS 5.8 Mood disorders (37.9% vs 13.8%; odds ratio [OR] = 4.0; 95% CI, 3.8-4.2), CCS 5.8.2 Depressive disorders (35.8% vs 13.0%; OR = 3.9; 95% CI, 3.7-4.1), and CCS 5.2 Anxiety disorders (25.1% vs 11.9%; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 2.4-2.7). Excess prevalence of anxiety and mood disorders (narcolepsy vs controls) was higher in younger age groups versus older age groups. Psychiatric medication usage was higher in the narcolepsy group versus controls in the following categories: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (36% vs 17%), anxiolytic benzodiazepines (34% vs 19%), hypnotics (29% vs 13%), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (21% vs 6%), and tricyclic antidepressants (13% vs 4%) (all P values < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Narcolepsy is associated with significant comorbid psychiatric illness burden and higher psychiatric medication usage compared with the non-narcolepsy population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".