MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W43140957 · doi:10.1177/070674370905400606

Prevalence and Correlates of Chronic Depression in the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being

2009· article· en· W43140957 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Satyendra Satyanarayana, Murray W. Enns, Brian J. Cox, Jitender Sareen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthDepression (economics)PsychiatryPsychologyEpidemiologyPublic healthCross-sectional studyMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and correlates of chronic depression in comparison with nonchronic depression using a population-representative national database. METHODS: Our study used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being (CCHS 1.2) to determine the lifetime prevalence and correlates of major depression with chronic symptoms in the population. The CCHS 1.2 is a large, cross-sectional mental health survey conducted by Statistics Canada (n = 36 984, aged 15 years and older). RESULTS: The observed lifetime prevalence of major depression with chronic symptoms was 2.7%, representing 26.8% of all people with major depressive disorder (MDD). In comparison to nonchronic major depression, chronic depression was associated with more frequent psychiatric and medical comorbidity, greater disability, increased health service use, and higher likelihood of suicidal ideation and attempts. CONCLUSIONS: Major depression with chronic symptoms is common in the general population, and is associated with more severe health consequences than nonchronic depression. These observations indicate that chronic major depression is a very important subtype of MDD from a public health perspective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations120
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207