A Systematic Review of Depression and Anxiety in Adults with Pyoderma Gangrenosum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence and odds for anxiety and depression in adults with pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). DATA SOURCES: Observational studies examining anxiety and depression in adults with PG were systematically searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from the inception of each database to March 11, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently screened references based on predetermined eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Of the 244 articles identified, three met the eligibility criteria. Relevant data were extracted from included studies, and methodological quality was evaluated independently by two authors using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three observational studies comprising 183 participants with PG met the inclusion criteria. Estimated rates of depression in adults with PG ranged from 10% to 23%. None of the studies measured rates of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review suggests that depression is a common psychological comorbidity in adults with PG. Additional research is required to further assess the psychological comorbidities in this population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".