Network analysis of depressive symptoms in Hong Kong residents during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In network theory depression is conceptualized as a complex network of individual symptoms that influence each other, and central symptoms in the network have the greatest impact on other symptoms. Clinical features of depression are largely determined by sociocultural context. No previous study examined the network structure of depressive symptoms in Hong Kong residents. The aim of this study was to characterize the depressive symptom network structure in a community adult sample in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 11,072 participants were recruited between 24 March and 20 April 2020. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. The network structure of depressive symptoms was characterized, and indices of "strength", "betweenness", and "closeness" were used to identify symptoms central to the network. Network stability was examined using a case-dropping bootstrap procedure. Guilt, Sad Mood, and Energy symptoms had the highest centrality values. In contrast, Concentration, Suicide, and Sleep had lower centrality values. There were no significant differences in network global strength (p = 0.259), distribution of edge weights (p = 0.73) and individual edge weights (all p values > 0.05 after Holm-Bonferroni corrections) between males and females. Guilt, Sad Mood, and Energy symptoms were central in the depressive symptom network. These central symptoms may be targets for focused treatments and future psychological and neurobiological research to gain novel insight into depression.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".