Determinants and outcomes of prolonged anxiety and depression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have recently shown that anxiety and depression are common comorbidities for people with interstitial lung disease (ILD). In a cross-sectional single-centre study, the prevalence of anxiety was 31% and the prevalence of depression was 23% [1]. Anxiety and depression were not related to physiological parameters; however, dyspnoea and number of comorbidities were important contributors. The aims of this study were to determine the frequency of prolonged anxiety and depression among sufferers of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and factors contributing to their persistence. Prolonged anxiety and depression occur frequently in IPF and strongly relate to dyspnoea and cough The researchers acknowledge the support to Australian IPF registry's national and state coordinators and its data manager in obtaining the data used for this research. I. Glaspole had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. I. Glaspole and A. Holland contributed substantially to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript. A. Watson contributed substantially to data analysis and interpretation and the writing of the manuscript. The remaining authors contributed substantially to the writing of the manuscript.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".