Real-World Depression Screening Practices Among Primary Care Providers Across Patient-Level and Provider-Level Characteristics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined primary care provider (PCP) alignment with guideline-based care for adolescent depression screening and identified factors associated with post-screening responses. A retrospective chart review was conducted across 17 primary care clinics. Logistical regressions were estimated across provider specialties, sociodemographic factors, and patient clinical histories. Significant differences in follow-up and identification of depression were found among patients with more severe depression presentation. Follow-up screening was also more likely to be completed among patients with private insurance and less likely to occur among Black patients. Patients with significant mental health history of a mood concern, history of being prescribed psychotropic medication, were currently on medications at the time of the screening, or had a history of an internal mental health referral had a higher predicted probability of being identified as depressed on the patient problem list.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it