MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891397251 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.658

Depressive episodes, weight change, and incident diabetes in a Canadian community sample

2018· article· en· W2891397251 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eva Graham, Norbert Schmitz, Laura C. Rosella

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCIDIDepression (economics)MedicinePopulationDemographyCommunity healthGerontologyIncidence (geometry)Weight changeDiabetes mellitusPsychiatryWeight lossObesityEnvironmental healthPublic healthNational Comorbidity Survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionDepression has consistently been associated with an increased risk of diabetes in recent meta-analyses. However, depression is a highly heterogeneous construct and people with specific symptoms of depression, such as weight gain and increased sleep, may be at a higher risk of diabetes.
 Objectives and ApproachThis work will compare incident diabetes in Ontario adults with recent depressive episodes that included symptoms of weight gain, weight loss, or no weight change and in those with no recent depressive episodes. Participants will be drawn from several waves of the Canadian Community Health Survey and the National Population Health Survey. Past 12-month depressive episodes and weight change during most recent or worst episodes was measured using the CIDI/CIDI short form. Time to incident diabetes will be ascertained through linkage with the Ontario Diabetes Database. Cox proportional hazards regression will assess diabetes incidence by depression and weight change characteristics.
 ResultsThis study will include 106 084 Ontario adults who participated in the Canadian Community Health Survey (2000/2001, 2002, 2003, 2012) and the National Population Health Survey (1996). Follow-up time will range from 4 to 19 years (until March 2017). Study covariates will include demographic and lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and health care use and will be extracted from the surveys above and from administrative health data. The dataset for this study is currently being prepared by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and the findings of this analysis will be presented at this conference.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsThe results of this work will provide insight into who, among those with depression, is at highest risk of new-onset diabetes. These results will be relevant to the development of both personalized and population-level diabetes screening and prevention strategies.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207