Traditional Chinese Medicine Body Constitutions as Predictors for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional Chinese medicine body constitution (TCMBC) reflects a person’s vulnerability to diseases. Thus, identifying body constitutions prone to depression can help prevent and treat depression. The review aimed to assess and summarize the existing evidence that explores the relationship between TCMBC and depression. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, Embase, VIP, CINAHL, and CMJ were searched from inception to April 2021. Observational studies assessing the association between TCMBC and depression were selected. The quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review and thirteen in the meta-analysis. The pooled odd ratios of developing depression for Qi-stagnation, Qi-deficiency, Yang-deficiency, Yin-deficiency, and Balanced constitutions were 3.12 (95% CI, 1.80–5.40; I2 = 94%), 2.15 (95% CI, 1.54–3.01; I2 = 89%), 1.89 (95% CI, 0.71–5.03; I2 = 81%), 1.41 (95% CI, 0.91–2.20; I2 = 57%), and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40–0.90; I2 = 94%), respectively. The findings suggest that the evaluation of a person’s TCMBC could be useful the in prevention and treatment of depression. However, more case-control and cohort studies are required to further confirm the association between TCMBC and depression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it