Differential effects of lifetime stressors on major depressive disorder severity: a longitudinal community-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stressors across the lifespan are associated with the onset of major depressive disorder (MDD) and increased severity of depressive symptoms. However, it is unclear how lifetime stressors are related to specific MDD subtypes. The present study aims to examine the relationships between MDD subtypes and stressors experienced across the lifespan while considering potential confounders. METHODS: = 1351). Lifetime stressors included childhood maltreatment, child-parent bonding, and stressful life events. Person-centered analyses were used to identify the clusters/profiles of the studied variables and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the relationships between stressors and identified MDD subtypes. Intersectional analysis was applied to further examine how distal stressors interact with proximal stressors to impact the development of MDD subtypes. RESULTS: There was a significant association between proximal stressors and melancholic depression, whereas severe atypical depression and moderate depression were only associated with some domains of stressful life events. Additionally, those with severe atypical depression and melancholic depression were more likely to be exposed to distal stressors such as childhood maltreatment. The combinations of distal and proximal stressors predicted a greater risk of all MDD subtypes except for moderate atypical depression. CONCLUSIONS: MDD was characterized into four subtypes based on depressive symptoms and severity. Different stressor profiles were linked with various MDD subtypes. More specific interventions and clinical management are called to provide precision treatment for MDD patients with unique stressor profiles and MDD subtypes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".