A Bayesian approach to estimating the population prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders using multiple measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There is currently no universally accepted measure for population-based surveillance of mood and anxiety disorders. As such, the use of multiple linked measures could provide a more accurate estimate of population prevalence. Our primary objective was to apply Bayesian methods to two commonly employed population measures of mood and anxiety disorders to make inferences regarding the population prevalence and measurement properties of a combined measure. METHODS: We used data from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey - Mental Health linked to health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Structured interview diagnoses were obtained from the survey, and health administrative diagnoses were identified using a standardised algorithm. These two prevalence estimates, in addition to data on the concordance between these measures and prior estimates of their psychometric properties, were used to inform our combined estimate. The marginal posterior densities of all parameters were estimated using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC), a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique. Summaries of posterior distributions, including the means and 95% equally tailed posterior credible intervals, were used for interpretation of the results. RESULTS: The combined prevalence mean was 8.6%, with a credible interval of 6.8-10.6%. This combined estimate sits between Bayesian-derived prevalence estimates from administrative data-derived diagnoses (mean = 7.4%) and the survey-derived diagnoses (mean = 13.9%). The results of our sensitivity analysis suggest that varying the specificity of the survey-derived measure has an appreciable impact on the combined posterior prevalence estimate. Our combined posterior prevalence estimate remained stable when varying other prior information. We detected no problematic HMC behaviour, and our posterior predictive checks suggest that our model can reliably recreate our data. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate population-based estimates of disease are the cornerstone of health service planning and resource allocation. As a greater number of linked population data sources become available, so too does the opportunity for researchers to fully capitalise on the data. The true population prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders may reside between estimates obtained from survey data and health administrative data. We have demonstrated how the use of Bayesian approaches may provide a more informed and accurate estimate of mood and anxiety disorders in the population. This work provides a blueprint for future population-based estimates of disease using linked health data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".