MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283517964 · doi:10.1101/2022.06.21.497075

Gender impacts the relationship between mood disorder symptoms and effortful avoidance performance

2022· preprint· en· W4283517964 on OpenAlexafffund
Brandon J. Forys, Ryan J. Tomm, Dayana Stamboliyska, Alex R. Terpstra, Luke Clark, Trisha Chakrabarty, Stan Floresco, Rebecca M. Todd

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsAnxietyPsychologyMoodBeck Depression InventoryDepression (economics)Beck Anxiety InventoryClinical psychologyBehavioral activationDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We must often decide how much effort to exert or withhold to avoid undesirable outcomes or obtain rewards. In depression and anxiety, levels of avoidance can be excessive and reward-seeking may be reduced. Yet outstanding questions remain about the links between motivated action/inhibition and anxiety and depression levels, and whether they differ between men and women. Here we examined the relationship between anxiety and depression scores, and performance on effortful active and inhibitory avoidance (Study 1) and reward seeking (Study 2) in humans. Undergraduates and paid online workers ( N Avoid = 545, N Reward = 310; N Female = 368, N Male = 450, M Age = 22.58, Range Age = 17-62) were assessed on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and performed an instructed online avoidance or reward-seeking task. Participants had to make multiple presses on active trials and withhold presses on inhibitory trials to avoid an unpleasant sound (Study 1) or obtain points towards a monetary reward (Study 2). Overall, men deployed more effort than women in both avoidance and reward-seeking, and anxiety scores were negatively associated with active reward-seeking performance based on sensitivity scores. Gender interacted with anxiety scores and inhibitory avoidance performance, such that women with higher anxiety showed worse avoidance performance. Our results illuminate effects of gender in the relationship between anxiety and depression levels and the motivation to actively and effortfully respond to obtain positive and avoid negative outcomes. Significance statement We must often take or withhold effortful action to avoid unpleasant outcomes or obtain rewards. Depression and anxiety can impact these behaviours’ effectiveness, but the roles of avoidance in depression and reward-seeking in anxiety are not fully understood. Gender differences in avoidance and reward-seeking have also not been examined. We present a task in which community participants with a range of anxiety and depression levels made or withheld button presses to avoid hearing an unpleasant sound or obtain a reward. Men deployed more effort than women in avoidance, and women with higher anxiety scores had lower avoidance performance than men. We illuminate gender differences in how depressive and anxiety scores impact our ability to avoid threats and obtain rewards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→