Anxiety and Depression Symptom Comorbidity and the Risk of Heart Disease: A Prospective Community-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the independent and joint associations between anxiety and depression symptoms with the risk of heart disease. METHODS: A total of 30,635 participants from the CARTaGENE community cohort study in Quebec who did not have heart diseases at baseline were included in the study. Baseline anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed using validated questionnaires. Survey data were linked with diagnostic codes from a public insurance database to examine incident heart disease during a 7-year follow-up period. Cox regression analyses were conducted comparing groups with high anxiety only, high depression only, comorbid anxiety and depression, and no/low symptoms of both on the risk of heart disease. Additional analyses examined anxiety and depression using continuous questionnaire symptom scores, data-driven comorbidity groups, and diagnostic codes. Covariates included sociodemographic characteristics, health behaviors, diabetes, and hypertension. RESULTS: In the main analyses, we found that, although depression without anxiety symptoms was associated with an increased risk of heart disease (hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% confidence interval = 1.04-1.74), there was no significant association for anxiety without depression symptoms (hazard ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.41). High anxiety assessed with diagnostic codes or by examining latent classes was, however, associated with a higher risk of heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: The association between anxiety and incident heart disease may be accounted for by comorbid depression, particularly when anxiety and depression symptoms are assessed using self-report questionnaires. Differing methods of assessment and analysis, and adjustment for comorbid depression may explain differences in findings across different studies on anxiety and the risk of heart disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".