Effects of Psychiatric Comorbidity in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease: Protocol for a Prospective Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), are highly prevalent in Canada and the United States and result in substantial personal and societal burden. The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, primarily depression and anxiety, in IMID exceeds those in the general population by two- to threefold, but remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Furthermore, the effects of psychiatric comorbidity on IMID are not well understood. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study were (1) to compare health-related quality of life and work ability in persons with IMID and psychiatric comorbidity with those of persons with IMID without psychiatric comorbidity and with those of persons with depression and anxiety disorders alone, and (2) to validate existing case identification tools for depression and anxiety in persons with IMID to facilitate improved identification of depression and anxiety by clinicians. To achieve these objectives, we designed a prospective 3-year longitudinal study. In this paper, we aim to describe the study rationale and design and the characteristics of study participants. METHODS Between November 2014 and July 2016, we recruited 982 individuals from multiple clinic and community sources; 18 were withdrawn due to protocol violations. RESULTS The final study sample included 247 participants with IBD, 255 with MS, 154 with RA, and 308 with depression or anxiety. The majority were white, with the proportion ranging from 85.4% (IBD [210/246]; MS [217/254]) to 74.5% (114/153, RA; P=.01). There was a female predominance in all groups, which was highest in the RA cohort (84.4%, 130/154) and least marked in the IBD cohort (62.7%, 155/247). Participants with depression or anxiety were more likely to be single (36.0%, 111/308) than participants in any other group (11.8% [30/255]-22.7% [56/247], P<.001). CONCLUSIONS This paper presents the rationale for this study, describes study procedures, and characterizes the cohort enrolled. Ultimately, the aim is improved care for individuals affected by IMID.
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 | 0.038 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.019 |
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".