Study protocol of DIVERGE, the first genetic epidemiological study of major depressive disorder in Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Globally, 80% of the burdenof major depressive disorder (MDD) pertains to low- and middle-income countries. Research into genetic and environmental risk factors has the potential to uncover disease mechanisms that may contribute to better diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, yet has so far been largely limited to participants with European ancestry from high-income countries. The DIVERGE study was established to help overcome this gap and investigate genetic and environmental risk factors for MDD in Pakistan. METHODS: DIVERGE aims to enrol 9000 cases and 4000 controls in hospitals across the country. Here, we provide the rationale for DIVERGE, describe the study protocol and characterise the sample using data from the first 500 cases. Exploratory data analysis is performed to describe demographics, socioeconomic status, environmental risk factors, family history of mental illness and psychopathology. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Many participants had severe depression with 74% of patients who experienced multiple depressive episodes. It was a common practice to seek help for mental health struggles from faith healers and religious leaders. Socioeconomic variables reflected the local context with a large proportion of women not having access to any education and the majority of participants reporting no savings. CONCLUSION: DIVERGE is a carefully designed case-control study of MDD in Pakistan that captures diverse risk factors. As the largest genetic study in Pakistan, DIVERGE helps address the severe underrepresentation of people from South Asian countries in genetic as well as psychiatric research.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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".