MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389430075 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295328

A protocol for a pooled analysis of cohort studies: The association between depression and anxiety in epileptic disorders

2023· article· en· W4389430075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yan Wang, Changbo Shen, Junyan Zhang, Qingcheng Yang, Jianshe Li, Jun Tan, Hang Yu, Zubing Mei

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotPublication biasAnxietyMedicinePsychiatryMeta-analysisPopulationEpilepsyCohort studyCohortDepression (economics)Hazard ratioClinical psychologyConfidence intervalInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION: Depressive and anxiety disorders constitute major mental health challenges affecting adults of all ages globally. It has been reported that individuals with depressive or anxiety disorders face an elevated risk of developing neurological conditions, including seizures and epilepsy. Additionally, people with these disorders tend to exhibit distinct clinical outcomes compared to the general population. However, the associations between depressive or anxiety disorders and epilepsy remain contentious. Thus, this study aims to elucidate the associations between these neuropsychiatric disorders, including depressive and anxiety disorders, and epilepsy or seizures. METHODS: We will systematically search three electronic databases-PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-from inception through March 2023 to identify relevant cohort studies investigating the associations between depressive or anxiety disorders and epilepsy or seizures. Two independent reviewers will extract data from eligible studies using pre-designed standardized data extraction forms, and cross-check results. A third author will resolve any discrepancies. Quality assessment will be performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Pooled risk estimates (Relative risks or hazard ratios with their 95% CI) will be calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. If between-study heterogeneity is identified, we will conduct subgroup analyses or meta-regressions to explore the possible sources of heterogeneity (participants, exposure, outcome, and study design) stratified by various study characteristics. Potential publication bias will be detected through the inspection of funnel plot asymmetry, complemented by the Egger linear regression approach (Egger's test) and the Begg rank correlation test (Begg's test). DISCUSSION: This pooled analysis will evaluate the association between depressive or anxiety disorders and epilepsy or seizures, providing high-level evidence to inform early identification and prevention strategies for epilepsy or seizures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that the data utilized for analysis in this pooled analysis does not involve human subjects or medical records, no ethical approval is required for this study. We intend to present the results of this study at national or international conferences or submit the findings to a peer-reviewed journal. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WM2X8.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.169
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1690.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.026
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.016

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicEpilepsy research and treatment→French-language works237,207→