The Prevalence and Incidence of Depression among Visually Impaired People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Disability is widely acknowledged as a major contributor to depression, which is a prevalent mental health condition that profoundly affects individuals, especially those with visual impairments. Objectives: This develops a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis aim to examine the prevalence and incidence of depression among visually impaired people globally. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A thorough search will be conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ProQuest databases to identify relevant studies published between January 1, 2011, and August 31, 2024, without limitations on language. Two out of three independent reviewers will screen the abstracts and full-text articles, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity among the included studies will be evaluated individually. Meta-analysis of the pooled prevalence and incidence estimates will be conducted using the metaprop function in StataBE 18.0. Publication bias will be assessed through funnel plot analysis and Egger's test. Conclusion: This protocol defines the planned scope and methodology for a forthcoming systematic review and meta-analysis, which aims to provide updated evidence on the prevalence and incidence of depression among individuals with visual impairment. Accordingly, it will facilitate a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the existing research gap by providing precise estimates of the pooled prevalence and incidence of depression in this population. The findings will offer valuable insights to inform public health policy, advocate for further research, and underscore the critical need to prioritize the mental health concerns of individuals with visual impairment. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries with the Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6J4Y2.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".