Forest plots of the meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div><p>Objective</p><p>This systematic review aims to examine the influencing factors of undergraduates’ depressive symptoms by summarizing the categories and intensity of the factors, to lay a foundation for subsequent research.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Two authors independently searched in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopu, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, the Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP Database), China National Knowledge database (CNKI), and the WanFang database for cohort studies related to the influencing factors affecting depressive symptoms among undergraduates published prior to September 12, 2022. Adjusted Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of regression coefficient estimates were performed to calculate pooled estimates with R 4.0.3 software.</p><p>Results</p><p>A total of 73 cohort studies were included, involving 46362 participants from 11 countries. Factors affecting depressive symptoms were classified into relational, psychological, predictors of response to trauma, occupational, sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. In Meta-analysis, 4 of 7 influencing factors were revealed to be statistically significant: negative coping (B = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.22–1.74), rumination (B = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01–0.11), stress (OR = 0.22, 95%CI: 0.16–0.28) and childhood abuse (B = 0.42, 95%CI:0.13–0.71). No significant association was found in positive coping, gender and ethnicity.</p><p>Limitations</p><p>The current studies have the problems of inconsistent use of scales and large heterogeneity of research design, making it difficult to summarize, which is expected to be further improved in future research.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>This review evidences the importance of several influencing factors of depressive symptoms among undergraduates. We advocate for more high-quality studies with more coherent and appropriate study designs and outcome measurement approaches in this field.</p><p>Trial registration</p><p><b><i>Systematic review registration</i>:</b> PROSPERO registration <a href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021267841" target="_blank">CRD42021267841</a>.</p></div>
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.426 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".