Evolutionary theory and the treatment of depression: It is all about the squids and the sea bass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the analytical rumination hypothesis, depression is an evolved adaptation (like pain or anxiety) that served in our ancestral past to keep people focused on complex interpersonal problems until they could arrive at a resolution (spontaneous remission). If this is true, then those clinical treatments that most facilitate the functions that depression evolved to serve are likely to be more advantageous in the long run than others that simply relieve distress. For example, antidepressant medications may be efficacious in the treatment of depression but only work for so long as they are taken. They may also have an iatrogenic effect that prolongs the duration of the underlying episode. Cognitive and behavioral interventions are as efficacious as medications in terms of reducing acute distress and also appear to have an enduring effect that protects against the return of subsequent symptoms. However, the bulk of the evidence for this effect comes from comparisons to prior medication treatment and it remains unclear whether these psychosocial interventions are truly preventative, or antidepressant medications iatrogenic. A study is described that could resolve this issue and test evolutionary theory with respect to the purported role of rumination in bringing about spontaneous remission.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".