Novel Approach to Mind Wandering in Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder Patients: Does the Direction of Thoughts Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIntroduction: This study investigated the features of mind wandering in patients with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder in comparison with the healthy control group.Method: The number and duration of internally- and externally-oriented thoughts during MW in 90 healthy control, major depressive disorder, and depressed bipolar disorder subjects were measured by a novel method of experience sampling experiment in the laboratory at the Royal Mental Health Centre of the University of Ottawa, Canada using the MATLAB software. Subjects also filled out BDI-II to evaluate current depressive symptoms. The methods used to analyze data included Chi-square, ANOVA, LSD Post Hoc Test, Pearson and Spearman correlation.Results: 1) an increased number of internally-oriented thought contents in MDD and BD; 2) the duration of time MDD and BD groups engage with the internal thoughts is almost twice the time the HC spend on it; 3) the relationship between the direction of thoughts during MW and depressive symptoms.Conclusion: Our results show depressed patients with MDD and BD spend a longer time on internal thoughts during MW which is related to the severity of their depressive symptoms, which carries clinical implications for both diagnosis and therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".