Symptom dimensions of major depression in a large community-based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our understanding of major depression is complicated by substantial heterogeneity in disease presentation, which can be disentangled by data-driven analyses of depressive symptom dimensions. We aimed to determine the clinical portrait of such symptom dimensions among individuals in the community. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of 25 261 self-reported White UK Biobank participants with major depression. Nine questions from the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire encompassing depressive symptoms were decomposed into underlying factors or 'symptom dimensions' via factor analysis, which were then tested for association with psychiatric diagnoses and polygenic risk scores for major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Replication was performed among 655 self-reported non-White participants, across sexes, and among 7190 individuals with an ICD-10 code for MDD from linked inpatient or primary care records. RESULTS: Four broad symptom dimensions were identified, encompassing negative cognition, functional impairment, insomnia and atypical symptoms. These dimensions replicated across ancestries, sexes and individuals with inpatient or primary care MDD diagnoses, and were also consistent among 43 090 self-reported White participants with undiagnosed self-reported depression. Every dimension was associated with increased risk of nearly every psychiatric diagnosis and polygenic risk score. However, while certain psychiatric diagnoses were disproportionately associated with specific symptom dimensions, the three polygenic risk scores did not show the same specificity of associations. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of questionnaire data from a large community-based cohort reveals four replicable symptom dimensions of depression with distinct clinical, but not genetic, correlates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".