Bridging Three Years of Insights: Examining the Association Between Depression and Gallstone Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite sharing common pathophysiological risk factors, the relationship between gallstones and depression requires further evidence for a clearer understanding. This study combines the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017 - 2020 observational data and Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to shed light on the potential correlation between these conditions. Methods: By analyzing the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017 - 2020 data through weighted multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, we examined the association between depression and gallstone risk. MR was subsequently applied, utilizing genetic instruments from a large genome-wide association study on depression (excluding 23andMe, 500,199 participants) and gallstone data (28,627 cases, 348,373 controls), employing the main inverse variance-weighted method alongside other MR methods to explore the causal relationship. Sensitivity analyses validated the study's conclusions. Results: Among the 5,303 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants, a significant association was found between depressive symptoms and increased gallstone risk (initial odds ratio (OR) = 2.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.523 - 2.598; P < 0.001), with the association persisting after comprehensive adjustments (final OR = 1.687; 95% CI = 1.261 - 2.234; P < 0.001). MR findings also indicated a causal link between genetically predicted depression and higher gallstone risk (OR = 1.164; 95% CI = 1.053 - 1.286; P = 0.003). Conclusions: Depression is significantly associated with a higher risk of gallstones, supported by genetic evidence suggesting a causal link. These findings highlight the importance of considering depression in gallstone risk assessments and management strategies.
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 | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".