Differences in the Clinical Profile of Adolescents and Young Adults with Major Depressive Disorder Across Parental History Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important causal factor of depression is family history ¾ there is compelling evidence that Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is familial. Although the connection between a maternal history of depression and offspring risk is well established, paternal history has been largely ignored in research thus far. The first goal of this study is to examine differences in the clinical profile of MDD across parental depression history groups (i.e., both-parent history versus maternal history only versus paternal history only versus no parental history). Based on previous findings, I predict that the severity of the clinical course of MDD (as operationalized by a higher severity of depression and anxiety symptoms, an increased likelihood of recurrence, and a greater likelihood of a comorbid anxiety disorder) will be highest for offspring with a both-parent history of depression, followed by those with a maternal history only, followed by individuals with a paternal history only, and lastly by offspring with no parental history of depression. The second goal is to determine if the group differences hypothesized above are further moderated by offspring sex. To date, very little is known about how parental history influences the clinical presentation of MDD in depressed offspring. This study will contribute to a limited body of research, and is unique in that it will include four parental history groups as well as offspring sex in its analyses. The study will use a quasi-archival sample of approximately 250 participants between 12 and 29 years of age, who have been diagnosed with MDD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".