Depressive symptoms and frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty and depressive symptoms are common issues facing older adults and may be associated. OBJECTIVES: To determine if: (i) depressive symptoms are associated with frailty; (ii) there is a gradient in this effect across the range of depressive symptoms; and (iii) the association between depressive symptoms and frailty is specific to particular types of depressive symptoms (positive affect, negative affect, somatic complaints, and interpersonal relations). METHOD: Secondary analysis of an existing population-based study was conducted. POPULATION: In 1991, 1751 community-living adults aged 65+ years were interviewed. MEASURES: Depressive symptoms were measured using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. Frailty was graded from 0 (no frailty) to 3 (moderate/severe frailty). Age, gender, education, marital status, self-rated health, and the number of comorbid conditions were self-reported. ANALYSES: Logistic regression models were constructed with the outcome of no frailty/urinary incontinence only versus frailty. RESULTS: Depressive symptoms were strongly associated with frailty, and there was a gradient effect across the entire range of the CES-D scale. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval was 1.08 (1.06, 1.09) per point of the CES-D in unadjusted models. After potential confounding factors were adjusted, the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.03 (1.01, 1.05). Positive affect, negative affect, and somatic complaints were all associated with frailty, whereas interpersonal relations were not associated with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms are associated with frailty. Clinicians should consider assessing frail older adults for the presence of depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".