Depression and Prostate Cancer: Examining Comorbidity and Male-Specific Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression in men with prostate cancer is a significant and complex issue that can challenge clinicians' diagnostic efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate prototypic and male-specific depression symptoms and suicidal ideation in men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer relative to those with and without comorbidity. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Male Depression Risk Scale-22 (MDRS-22) were completed online along with demographic and background variables by 100 men with a diagnosis of prostate cancer ( n = 54 prostatectomy, n = 33 receiving active treatment). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to examine recent (past 2 weeks) suicide ideation. Over one-third of the sample (38%) reported a comorbidity, and this group had significantly higher total depression scores on the PHQ-9 (Cohen's d = 0.65), MDRS-22 emotion suppression ( d = 0.35), and drug use subscales ( d = 0.38) compared to respondents without comorbidity. A total of 14% reported recent suicidal ideation, of which 71.4% of cases were identified by the PHQ-9 "moderate" cut-off, and 85.7% of cases were identified by the MDRS-22 "elevated" cut-off. After control variables, MDRS-22 subscales accounted for 45.1% of variance in recent suicidal ideation. While limited by the exclusive use of self-report data, findings point to the potential benefits of evaluating male-specific symptoms as part of depression and suicide risk screening in men with prostate cancer and the need to be mindful of the heightened risk for depression among men with prostate cancer who have comorbidity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".