MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793324813 · doi:10.1111/bjc.12175

The measurement of cognitive reactivity to sad mood in patients remitted from major depressive disorder

2018· article· en· W2793324813 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caroline Figueroa, Roel J. T. Mocking, Gelera A. Mahmoud, Maarten W.J. Koeter, Claudi Bockting, Willem van der Does, Henricus G. Ruhé, Aart H. Schene

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHersenstichtingAcademisch Medisch CentrumUniversiteit van AmsterdamUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenZonMwRijksuniversiteit GroningenUniversity of TorontoBrain Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyMajor depressive disorderMoodDysfunctional familyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Depressed moodPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive reactivity (CR) to sad mood is a risk factor for major depressive disorder (MDD). CR is usually measured by assessing change on the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS-change) after sad mood-induction. It has, however, been suggested that the versions of the DAS (A/B) are not interchangeable, impacting the reliability and validity of the change score. The Leiden Index of Depression Sensitivity-Revised (LEIDS-R) is an alternative self-report measure of CR. Studies examining the relationship between LEIDS-R and DAS-change have shown mixed results. We examined whether scores of these CR measures differed between remitted MDD and controls, the relationship between these CR measures, and the effect of order of DAS administration on DAS-change. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design with two groups (remitted MDD and controls). METHODS: Sixty-eight MDD patients remitted from ≥2 previous episodes, not taking antidepressants, and 43 never-depressed controls participated in a mood-induction and filled in the DAS-A/B in randomized order before and after mood-induction, and LEIDS-R separately. RESULTS: LEIDS-R scores and pre-mood-induction DAS scores were significantly higher in remitted MDD than controls (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.48; p = .001, Cohen's d = 0.66, respectively). DAS-change did not differ between these groups (p = .67, Cohen's d = 0.08). LEIDS-R correlated with DAS-change (r = .30, p = .042), but only in the group that filled in DAS-B before DAS-A. In remitted MDD, DAS-change was dependent on the order of DAS versions before and after mood-induction (10.6 ± 19.0 vs. -1.2 ± 10.5, for order B-A and A-B, respectively), with a significant group × order interaction (p = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Existing DAS versions are not interchangeable, which compromises the usefulness of mood-inductions in clinical practice. The LEIDS-R seems a valid measure of cognitive vulnerability to depression. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Clinical implications: Cognitive reactivity (CR) is a risk factor of depressive recurrence. The current measurement of CR, by assessing change on the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS) after mood-induction, is not reliable. The Leiden Index Depression Sensitivity-Revised (LEIDS-R) is an alternative CR measure. In contrast to mood-induction, it reliably assesses depression vulnerability. The use of mood-inductions for clinical/research purposes is unnecessary. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY: We were not able to examine the effect of previous treatment, which could have affected results as psychological treatments probably have differential effects on CR. Examining un-medicated patients may have led to selection of a sample not completely representative for the general MDD population. We did not administer both parallel versions of the DAS (A/B) before and after mood-induction. This might have provided better understanding of their differential sensitivity to change.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.351 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PsychologySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207