Epidemiological overview of major depressive disorder in Scandinavia using nationwide registers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common psychiatric disorder associated with a high disease burden. This study gives a comprehensive overview of the prevalence, outcomes, treatment, and genetic epidemiology of MDD within and across the Scandinavian countries. Methods: This study has aimed to assess and compare across Norway, Denmark, and Sweden 1) the prevalence and trajectories of MDD and comorbidity, 2) outcomes and treatment, and 3) heritability (Denmark and Sweden only). The analyses leveraged data on 272,944 MDD cases (and 6.2 million non-cases) from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark in specialist care in national longitudinal health registers covering 1975-2013. Relying on harmonized public data global comparisons of socioeconomic and health metrics were performed to assess to what extent findings are generalizable. Findings: MDD ranked among the most prevalent psychiatric disorders. For many cases, the disorder trajectory was severe, with varying proportions experiencing recurrence, developing comorbid disorders, requiring inpatient treatment, or dying of suicide. Important country differences in specialist care prevalence and treatment were observed. Heritability estimates were moderate (35-48%). In terms of socioeconomic and health indices, the Scandinavian nations were comparable to one another and grouped with other Western nations. Interpretation: The Scandinavian countries were similar with regards to MDD epidemiological measures, but we show that differences in health care organization need to be taken into consideration when comparing countries. This study demonstrates the utility of using comprehensive population-wide registry data, outlining possibilities for other applications. The findings will be of use to policy makers for developing better prevention and intervention strategies. Funding: Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, award D0886501 to PFS), US National Institutes of Mental HealthR01 MH123724 (to PFS), European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (847776 and 964874, to OA) and European Research Council grant (grant agreement ID 101042183, to YL).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".