Adult mental health outcomes of adolescent depression: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent depression may increase risk for poor mental health outcomes in adulthood. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association between adolescent depression and adult anxiety and depressive disorders as well as suicidality. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PSYCinfo databases were searched and longitudinal cohort studies in which depression was measured in adolescence (age 10-19) and outcomes of depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, or suicidality were measured in adulthood (age 21+), were selected. Meta-analysis using inverse variance and random effects modeling, along with sensitivity analyses, were used to synthesize article estimates. RESULTS: Twenty articles were identified, representing 15 unique cohorts. Seventeen of 18 articles showed adolescent depression increased risk for adult depression; eleven pooled cohorts estimated that adolescents with depression had 2.78 (1.97, 3.93) times increased odds of depression in adulthood. Seven of eight articles that investigated the association between adolescent depression and any adult anxiety found a significant association. Three of five articles showed a significant association between adolescent depression and adult suicidality. CONCLUSION: This review shows that adolescent depression increases the risk for subsequent depression later in life. Articles consistently found that adolescent depression increases the risk for anxiety disorders in adulthood, but evidence was mixed on whether or not a significant association existed between adolescent depression and suicidality in adulthood. Early intervention in adolescent depression may reduce long-term burden of disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".