Depressive symptoms among adults: Baseline findings of PURE Malaysia cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In Malaysia, the prevalence of depression has increased from 1.8 % to 2.3 % within a decade. Thus, this study was performed to identify depressive symptoms and its associated factors among Malaysian adults. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among the adult population aged 35-70 residing in rural and urban areas in Malaysia. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the short form Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) questionnaire. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the associated factors related to depressive symptoms. Results: About 3.7 % (95 % CI: 2.33-4.83) of the respondents reported having depressive symptoms. Younger adults aged 35-40 years old (AOR: 3.087; 95 % CI: 2.021-4.717), females (AOR: 2.318; 95 % CI: 1.669-3.219), widows and divorcees (AOR: 2.294; 95 % CI: 1.085-4.848), smokers (AOR: 1.843; 95 % CI: 1.334-2.545) and alcohol consumers (AOR: 1.843; 95 % CI: 1.264-2.688) showed a higher odds compared to their other counterparts. Underweight individuals (AOR: 1.899; 95 % CI: 1.177-3.065) and those diagnosed either with hypertension (AOR: 1.442; 95 % CI: 1.11-1.873), diabetes (AOR: 1.554; 95 % CI: 1.133-2.13), angina (AOR: 2.73; 95 % CI: 1.596-4.67), COPD (AOR: 4.187; 95 % CI: 1.528-11.472) or asthma (AOR: 1.906; 95 % CI: 1.309-2.774) were more likely to have depressive symptoms. Additionally, individuals with difficulty trusting people (AOR: 1.477; 95 % CI: 1.024-2.13) and those reported to experience either home or work-related stress (AOR: 2.584; 95 % CI: 2.003-3.331) were more prone to have depressive symptoms. Conclusion: In this broad population-based study, about 3.7 % (95 % CI: 2.33-4.83) of respondents reported having depressive symptoms. Timely and well targeted collaborative intervention on the identified risk factors by the relevant authorities, would mitigate their effect on the quality of life and retard the progression into depression, especially among younger adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".