Does obesity along with major depression or anxiety lead to higher use of health care and costs? A 6-year follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence lacks on whether obesity along with major depression (MD)/anxiety leads to higher health care use (HCU) and health care-related costs (HCC) compared with either condition alone. The objective of the study was to examine the longitudinal associations of obesity, MD/anxiety, and their combination with HCU and HCC. Methods: Longitudinal data (2004-2013) among N = 2706 persons at baseline and 2-,4-, and 6-year follow-up were collected on obesity, MD/anxiety and HCU. Results: The combination of obesity and MD/anxiety was associated with an increased risk of primary and specialty care visits, and of hospitalizations, odds ratios (95%-confidence intervals): 1.83 (1.44; 2.34), 1.31 (1.06; 1.61) and 1.79 (1.40; 2.29) compared to non-obese and non-depressed individuals. The primary and specialty care costs were higher in persons with obesity and MD/anxiety than in persons without these conditions, but the relative excess risk due to interactions between obesity and MD/anxiety regarding HCU and HCC were not statistically significant (i.e. no synergistic effect). Conclusions: Obesity along with MD/anxiety leads to higher HCU and HCC over time. However, the HCC associated with the joint presence of both conditions are not higher than the sum of the HCC due to each condition independently.
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 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".