The association between self‐reported daily hassles and cortisol levels in depression and anxiety in community living older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether the association, in a naturalistic setting, between daily hassles and diurnal salivary cortisol differs in the presence of depression and anxiety in older adults. METHODS: Data were assessed in a large representative community sample of older adults (n = 1760). A multinomial analysis was used to study as an outcome variable: no disorder, depression only, anxiety only and depression and anxiety, as a function of daily hassles and cortisol levels controlling for age, gender and time of saliva collection. Multivariate regression analyses were also carried out to test the association between daily hassles and cortisol levels stratified by depression and anxiety status. RESULTS: A significant positive association was observed between the number of daily hassles reported and cortisol levels in participants with no depression and no anxiety and in participants with anxiety. Participants without depression and anxiety, and those with depression only, had significant lower cortisol levels later in the day. This was not observed in respondents with anxiety. CONCLUSION: Stressors such as daily hassles are associated with cortisol secretion in depression and anxiety in older adults in a large epidemiologic setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".