Rates of mental health concerns among individuals assessed at the GoodHope Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has indicated that individuals with Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS) and Generalized Hypermobililty Spectrum Disorder (G-HSD) report psychological and psychiatric symptoms, particularly anxiety disorders and depressive symptoms, at much greater rates than the general population. However, these studies have been primarily conducted in small samples at European centres. We report a retrospective chart review from 1035 consecutive patients (88% female) assessed for EDS/G-HSD at the GoodHope EDS Clinic at Toronto General Hospital between June 2019 and June 2021. Prior to assessment, all patients completed self-reported mental health screening questions, the Inventory of Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms - Dysphoria scale, and the Borderline Symptom List-23. The majority of patients reported current or past anxiety or depressive symptoms (53-87%), and a substantial minority reported significant mental health concerns, including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (4.7-34.8%), disordered eating (19%), self-harm (3-29.2%), and suicidal behaviour (7.8-18.6%). Patients did not differ by diagnostic category on self-report measures of dysphoria or borderline symptoms. Individuals with G-HSD reported higher rates of anxiety and depression in clinical interview than those diagnosed with non-hypermobile EDS, and endorsed a higher rate of having "struggled with anxiety or depression" on the mental health screening questionnaire than individuals not diagnosed with EDS/G-HSD. No other differences emerged across diagnostic groups. These findings highlight the need for psychological support for individuals with EDS or G-HSD.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".