Seasonality and symptoms of depression: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Lay opinions and published papers alike suggest mood varies with the seasons, commonly framed as higher rates of depression mood in winter. Memory and confirmation bias may have influenced previous studies. We therefore systematically searched for and reviewed studies on the topic, but excluded study designs where explicit referrals to seasonality were included in questions, interviews or data collection. METHODS: Systematic literature search in Cochrane database, DARE, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL, reporting according to the PRISMA framework, and study quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two authors independently assessed each study for inclusion and quality assessment. Due to large heterogeneity, we used a descriptive review of the studies. RESULTS: Among the 41 included studies, there was great heterogeneity in regards to included symptoms and disorder definitions, operationalisation and measurement. We also observed important heterogeneity in how definitions of 'seasons' as well as study design, reporting and quality. This heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and publication bias analysis. Thirteen of the studies suggested more depression in winter. The remaining studies suggested no seasonal pattern, seasonality outside winter, or inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that the research field of seasonal variations in mood disorders is fragmented, and important questions remain unanswered. There is some support for seasonal variation in clinical depression, but our results contest a general population shift towards lower mood and more sub-threshold symptoms at regular intervals throughout the year. We suggest future research on this issue should be aware of potential bias by design and take into account other biological and behavioural seasonal changes that may nullify or exacerbate any impact on mood.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".