MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of a Bidirectional Association Between Major Depressive Disorder and Alopecia Areata

2019· article· en· W2910242025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Dermatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlopecia areataMedicineDermatologyAssociation (psychology)Major depressive disorderMEDLINEPsychiatryPsychotherapistCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by hair loss that can impose a substantial psychological burden on patients, including major depressive disorder (MDD), yet many patients report mental health symptoms prior to the onset of AA. As such, there may be an association between MDD and AA that acts in both directions. Objective: To assess the bidirectional association between MDD and AA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included patients 10 to 90 years of age registered with The Health Improvement Network in general practices in the United Kingdom between January 1, 1986, and May 16, 2012. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 17, 2017, to April 23, 2018. To assess the risk of AA, the following 2 cohorts were defined: patients with an incident diagnosis of MDD (exposure) and a reference general population cohort. To assess the risk of MDD, the following 2 cohorts were defined: patients with an incident diagnosis of AA (exposure) and a reference general population cohort. Person-time was partitioned into unexposed and exposed time in the exposure cohorts. Main Outcomes and Measures: In the analysis of the risk of AA, development of incident AA during follow-up was considered the main outcome measure. In the analysis of the risk of MDD, development of incident MDD during follow-up was considered the primary outcome measure. Results: In the analysis of the risk of AA, 405 339 patients who developed MDD (263 916 women and 141 423 men; median age, 36.7 years [interquartile range, 26.6-50.5 years]) and 5 738 596 patients who did not develop MDD (2 912 201 women and 2 826 395 men; median age, 35.8 years [interquartile range, 25.3-52.6 years]) were followed up for 26 years. After adjustment for covariates, MDD was found to increase the risk of subsequently developing AA by 90% (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.67-2.15; P < .001). Antidepressants demonstrated a protective effect on the risk of AA (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62; P < .001). In the analysis of the risk of MDD, 6861 patients who developed AA (3846 women and 3015 men; median age, 31.5 years [interquartile range, 18.2 years]) and 6 137 342 patients who did not develop AA (3 172 371 women and 2 964 971 men; median age, 35.9 years [interquartile range, 27.0 years]) were followed up for 26 years. After adjustment for covariates, AA was found to increase the risk of subsequently developing MDD by 34% (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23-1.46; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These temporal analyses suggest that, while patients with AA are at risk for subsequently developing MDD, having MDD also appears to be a significant risk factor for development of AA, with antidepressant use confounding this risk.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.264 · 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