Psychological resilience and mood disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to describe the relationship between psychological resilience and mood disorders. METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The following databases were searched on November 6, 2020: PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were included and the majority of the studies included (95.7%) showed that psychological resilience has a positive impact in mood disorders. Our meta-analysis showed that individuals with bipolar disorder presented significantly lower levels of psychological resilience compared to controls (standardized mean difference [SDM]: -0.99 [95% confidence interval {95%CI}: -1.13 to -0.85], p < 0.001). In addition, individuals with depression had significantly lower levels of psychological resilience compared to controls (SDM: -0.71 [95%CI -0.81 to -0.61], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results showed that individuals with mood disorders are less resilient than individuals without mood disorders. Our findings reinforce the importance of investigating interventions that may help to improve psychological resilience considering its positive impact in the context of mood disorders.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".