MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226220179 · doi:10.1186/s12991-022-00387-1

Emotional blunting in patients with depression. Part I: clinical characteristics

2022· article· en· W4226220179 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of General Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH. Lundbeck A/S
KeywordsDepression (economics)MedicineInternal medicinePsychiatryObservational studyAntidepressantPsychologyClinical psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emotional blunting-inability to feel positive or negative emotions, detachment, or reduced emotional responsiveness-is common in people with depression. However, there is a paucity of studies comprehensively investigating this symptom and its functional impact. This study investigated the experience of emotional blunting, and its impact on overall functioning and quality of life, in the acute and remission phases of depression from the perspective of patients and healthcare providers. This paper presents data on the clinical presentation of emotional blunting in depression from the patient perspective. METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational study conducted in Brazil, Canada, and Spain between April 15 and May 18, 2021. Data were collected via a self-completed online survey. Respondents were adults with depression (acute or remission phase), who were currently using a prescribed antidepressant, and who reported emotional blunting during the past 6 weeks. Emotional blunting was assessed using the Oxford Depression Questionnaire (ODQ; total score range 26-130, higher scores indicate greater emotional blunting). RESULTS: In all, 752 patients completed the survey (62% female; mean age, 45 years). Overall, 44% of patients rated their emotional blunting as extremely severe (acute phase [n = 300], 72%; remission phase [n = 452], 25%; difference, p < 0.01). In all, 56% of patients considered their emotional blunting to be caused by their depression (acute phase, 62%; remission phase, 52%). Mean ODQ total score was 94.8 for patients in the acute phase of depression and 85.7 for those in remission (difference, p < 0.01). Mean score for the ODQ 'antidepressant as cause' domain (maximum possible score, 30) was 18.0 in patients in the acute phase and 17.6 in those in remission. Overall, 45% of patients believed that their antidepressant medication was blunting their emotions and 39% were considering stopping or had already stopped their antidepressant because of perceived emotion-related side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Almost three-quarters of patients in the acute phase of depression and one-quarter of those in remission reported severe emotional blunting. Approximately 56% of patients considered their emotional blunting to be caused by their depression, while 45% believed that their antidepressant medication was negatively affecting their emotions. Just over one-third of patients were considering stopping or had stopped their antidepressant as a result.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it