MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392406081 · doi:10.1016/j.nsa.2024.103990

Longitudinal relationships between depression and cardiovascular disease risk in two major population cohorts

2024· article· en· W4392406081 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas P. Zonneveld, Anil P. S. Ori, Rada R Veeneman, Jentien M. Vermeulen, R. Taros, Wiepke Cahn, Connie R. Bezzina, Anja Lok, Karin J. H. Verweij, Jorien L. Treur

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience Applied · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)DiseasePopulationMedicineDemographyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Depression is one of the most common mental illnesses worldwide. People who have been diagnosed with depression have a reduced life expectancy of 10-15 years, which can partly be explained by an increased risk of cardiovascular disease [1]. It is not yet clear exactly why depression is associated with cardiovascular disease risk. The associations could be due to causal mechanisms, in which case important mediating factors need to be considered, including lifestyle, psychotropic medication use, and social influences [2]. Additionally, while there is evidence that both depression and cardiovascular disease presents differently across biological sexes and different ethnic groups, there is currently a stark lack of studies in non-white European populations. Objective: The aim of this multi-ethnic study is to assess evidence for potentially causal effects between depression and cardiovascular disease risk across two major cohorts: The Lifelines cohort (N=167,770, predominately white European ancestry, three time-points available) [3] and the HELIUS cohort (N=4671 Dutch, 3369 South-Asian Surinamese, 4458 African Surinamese, 2735 Ghanaian, 4200 Turkish, 4502 Moroccan, two time-points available) [4]. Additionally, we intend to study whether lifestyle (e.g. physical activity, BMI, smoking, diabetes), social factors (e.g. loneliness, perceived social support), and psychotropic medication use mediate these effects. Lastly, we aim to analyse whether the aforementioned relationships differ across biological sexes and ethnic groups. Methods: In order to study the bidirectional longitudinal relationships between depression and cardiovascular disease risk, we will use random-intercept cross-lagged panel models [5]. The random intercepts capture time-invariant individual level differences in the data, which allows one to capture unmodelled mediators and to separate individual deviations of the group mean from potentially causal longitudinal relationships between observed variables. In the model, depression as well as cardiovascular disease can be considered as both an exposure and outcome. By conducting ‘nested’ models, in which some of the paths are omitted, it can be tested whether it is more likely that depression precedes changes in cardiovascular disease risk, or the reverse. The main variables of interest are depression (measured as depressive symptoms) and cardiovascular disease risk (measured as mean blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, ECG variables). One can also include mediators in the model; we will include sex, ethnicity, lifestyle factors (compound or physical activity, smoking, diabetes and BMI separately), social mediators (compound or loneliness, perceived social support and perceived discrimination separately), and psychotropic medication use. Hypotheses: We expect to find that depression and cardiovascular disease are longitudinally associated in both directions, but that there is stronger evidence that depression increases subsequent cardiovascular disease risk. Additionally, we hypothesize that these associations are mediated by factors such as smoking, physical activity, medication use, and loneliness. However, we cannot be sure yet about the relative strengths of the mentioned factors. Lastly, we expect to find differences in the strengths of the associations between men and women and across different ethnic backgrounds. Conclusion: Data analysis is currently still ongoing, results will be presented at the ECNP workshop in March 2024. References [1] Correll, C.U., Solmi, M., Veronese, N., Bortolato, B., Rosson, S., Santonastaso, P., Thapa-Chhetri, N., Fornaro, M., Gallicchio, D., Collantoni, E., Pigato, G., Favaro, A., Monaco, F., Kohler, C., Vancampfort, D., Ward, P.B., Gaughran, F., Carvalho, A.F., Stubbs, B., 2017. Prevalence, incidence and mortality from cardiovascular disease in patients with pooled and specific severe mental illness: a large-scale meta-analysis of 3,211,768 patients and 113,383,368 controls. World Psychiatry 16, 163-180. [2] Berk, M., Kohler-Forsberg, O., Turner, M., Penninx, B.W.J.H., Wrobel, A., Firth, J., Loughman, A., Reavley, N.J., McGrath, J.J., Momen, N. C., Plana-Ripoll, O., O'Neil, A., Siskind, D., Williams, L.J., Carvalho, A.F., Schmaal, L., Walker, A.J., Dean, O., Walder, K., Berk, L., Dodd, S., Yung, A.R., Marx, W., 2023. Comorbidity between major depressive disorder and physical diseases: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, mechanisms and management. World Psychiatry 22(3), 366-387. [3] Sijtsma, A., Rienks, J., van der Harst, P., Navis, G., Rosmalen, J.G.M., Dotinga, A., 2022. Cohort Profile Update: Lifelines, a three-generation cohort study and biobank. Int J Epidemiol 51(5), 295-302. [4] Snijder, M.B., Galenkamp, H., Prins, M., Derks, E.M., Peters, R.J.G., Zwinderman, A.H., Stronks, K., 2017. Cohort profile: the Healthy Life in an Urban Setting (HELIUS) study in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. BMJ Open 7(12), e017873. [5] Hamaker, E.L., Kuiper, R.M., Grasman, R.P., 2015. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol Methods 20(1), 102-116.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience AppliedSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207