MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991372000 · doi:10.1177/0004867419888576

Depression in the medically ill

2019· review· en· W2991372000 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua D. Rosenblat, Paul Kurdyak, Fiammetta Cosci, Michael Berk, Michaël Maes, André R. Brunoni, Madeline Li, Gary Rodin, Roger S. McIntyre, André F. Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychoeducationMedicineContext (archaeology)PsychiatryPsychosocialDepression (economics)PopulationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are significantly more common in the medically ill compared to the general population. Depression is associated with worsening of physical symptoms, greater healthcare utilization and poorer treatment adherence. The present paper provides a critical review on the assessment and management of depression in the medically ill. METHODS: Relevant articles pertaining to depression in the medically ill were identified, reviewed and synthesized qualitatively. A systematic review was not performed due to the large breadth of this topic, making a meaningful summary of all published and unpublished studies not feasible. Notable studies were reviewed and synthesized by a diverse set of experts to provide a balanced summary. RESULTS: Depression is frequently under-recognized in medical settings. Differential diagnoses include delirium, personality disorders and depressive disorders secondary to substances, medications or another medical condition. Depressive symptoms in the context of an adjustment disorder should be initially managed by supportive psychological approaches. Once a mild to moderate major depressive episode is identified, a stepped care approach should be implemented, starting with general psychoeducation, psychosocial interventions and ongoing monitoring. For moderate to severe symptoms, or mild symptoms that are not responding to low-intensity interventions, the use of antidepressants or higher intensity psychotherapeutic interventions should be considered. Psychotherapeutic interventions have demonstrated benefits with small to moderate effect sizes. Antidepressant medications have also demonstrated benefits with moderate effect sizes; however, special caution is needed in evaluating side effects, drug-drug interactions as well as dose adjustments due to impairment in hepatic metabolism and/or renal clearance. Novel interventions for the treatment of depression and other illness-related psychological symptoms (e.g. death anxiety, loss of dignity) are under investigation. LIMITATIONS: Non-systematic review of the literature. CONCLUSION: Replicated evidence has demonstrated a bidirectional interaction between depression and medical illness. Screening and stepped care using pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions is merited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of PsychiatrySame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207