Factors associated with anxiety disorder comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depressive disorders often co-occur and the order of their emergence may be associated with different clinical outcomes. However, minimal research has been conducted on anxiety-anxiety comorbidity. This study examined factors associated with anxiety comorbidity and anxiety-MDD temporal sequence. METHODS: Online, self-report data were collected from the UK-based GLAD and COPING NBR cohorts (N = 38,775). Logistic regression analyses compared differences in sociodemographic, trauma, and clinical factors between single anxiety, anxiety-anxiety comorbidity, anxiety-MDD (major depressive disorder) comorbidity, and MDD-only. Additionally, anxiety-first and MDD-first anxiety-MDD were compared. Differences in familial risk were assessed in those participants with self-reported family history or genotype data. RESULTS: Anxiety-anxiety and anxiety-MDD had higher rates of self-reported anxiety or depressive disorder diagnoses, younger age of onset, and higher recurrence than single anxiety. Anxiety-MDD displayed greater clinical severity/complexity than MDD only. Anxiety-anxiety had more severe current anxiety symptoms, less severe current depressive symptoms, and reduced likelihood of self-reporting an anxiety/depressive disorder diagnosis than anxiety-MDD. Anxiety-first anxiety-MDD had a younger age of onset, more severe anxiety symptoms, and less likelihood of self-reporting a diagnosis than MDD-first. Minimal differences in familial risk were found. LIMITATIONS: Self-report, retrospective measures may introduce recall bias. The familial risk analyses were likely underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety-anxiety comorbidity displayed a similarly severe and complex profile of symptoms as anxiety-MDD but distinct features. For anxiety-MDD, first-onset anxiety had an earlier age of onset and greater severity than MDD-first. Anxiety disorders and comorbidity warrant further investigation and attention in research and practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".