Physical activity and mortality in the general population with and without major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: It is not yet well understood whether physical activity (PA) may protect against elevated mortality in major depression. Answering this question has implications for policy and practice. The aim of this study was to estimate the association of PA with mortality in major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey—Mental Health and Well-Being (CCHS 2002), conducted in 2002 (n = 31,200), and the Canadian Community Health Survey—Mental Health (CCHS-MH 2012), conducted in 2012 (n = 20,935), for this analysis. Recreational PA was measured using metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values, classifying participants as active, moderately active, and physically inactive in the 2002 survey and as very active, active, moderately active, and physically inactive in the 2012 survey. Major depression was assessed using a fully structured diagnostic instrument, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Mortality data was obtained through data linkage. The analysis used Cox proportional hazard models to explore the associations. Results: PA in the 2002 survey was protective: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.64–0.74) and HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.72–0.83) for the active and moderately active groups, respectively. In the 2012 survey, the HRs were 0.55 (95% CI 0.43–0.70), 0.57 (95% CI 0.43–0.75), and 0.59 (95% CI 0.46–0.76) for the very active, active, and moderately active groups, respectively. No interactions were significant. Conclusions: These results indicate that PA protects against elevated mortality to the same extent in those with MDD as in those without. These findings, which arise from a representative sample, support continued efforts to integrate PA into the management of depressive disorders at the population level.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".