Self-Reported Mood and Lifestyle-Related Physical Activity of Young Adults With Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether mood and lifestyle-related indicators of physical health are differentially expressed according to self-reported levels of depressive symptoms among young adults with a current episode of major depression. In a cross-sectional study, we recruited 94 young adults (females = 67, 71.3%; males = 27, 28.7%; aged 18–35 years) with a current episode of major depression. We assessed their mood with the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and Beck Anxiety Inventory-(BAI), sleep with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), physical activity with the Simple Physical Activity Questionnaire (SIMPAQ), and their cardiorespiratory fitness. Participants’ depression levels were classified as follows using established cut-points: (a) Mild Depressive Symptoms (MIDS, BDI-II 14-19 points, n = 17), (b) Moderate Depressive Symptoms (MODS, BDI-II 20–28 points, n = 37) or (c) Severe Depressive Symptoms (SEDS, BDI-II 29–63 points, n = 40). As expected, we found that young adults with SEDS, when compared to those with MODS and MIDS, showed higher depressive mood on the POMS, and they exhibited greater anxiety symptoms, lower reported ‘vigor’ on physical activity measures, worse sleep quality as expressed by their global score sleep; daytime dysfunction; and sleep disturbance, and they showed lower cardiorespiratory fitness. Those with moderate depressive symptoms only differed from those with mild symptoms with respect to hostility, fatigue and mood disturbance. Although there was a gradient whereby worse mental and physical health indicators were more closely related to the SEDS depression categorization, while healthier indicators were associated with the MIDS category, some parameters were not different between the MDD severity groups, particularly when comparing MIDS and MODS. Clinicians treating patients with MDD should consider these factors when designing lifestyle-based interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".