The Prevalence and Correlates of Major and Minor Depression in Older Medical Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of and characteristics associated with major and minor depression in older medical inpatients and to compare associated characteristics by sex and history of depression. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of two patient samples, with and without a screening diagnosis of major or minor depression. SETTING: The medical services of two acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Medical admissions of people aged 65 and older with at most mild cognitive impairment (N=380). MEASUREMENTS: Diagnoses of major and minor depression (Diagnostic Interview Schedule), cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination), premorbid disability, sociodemographic variables (including social networks and support), comorbidity, severity of illness, history of depression. RESULTS: The prevalence of major depression differed by hospital, ranging from 14.2% (95% confidence interval (CI)=11.7-17.1) in Hospital A to 44.5% (95% CI=33.1-56.4) in Hospital B. The prevalence of minor depression was similar in the two hospitals, ranging from 9.4% (95% CI=7.4-11.9) in Hospital A to 7.9% (95% CI=2.9-16.3) in Hospital B. After adjustment for hospital, the same characteristics (history of depression, premorbid disability, cognitive impairment, perceived adequacy of support, and visits from friends) were associated with major and minor depression, although most of these associations tended to be weaker for minor depression. Most of these factors were also associated with depression in multivariate analyses. The most important characteristics in women were premorbid disability, history of depression, and adequacy of emotional support; in men they were history of depression, cognitive impairment, and adequacy of emotional support. A cerebrovascular or other cardiovascular diagnosis did not explain the association between depression and cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Major and minor depression occur frequently in older medical inpatients and are associated with similar patient characteristics. A history of depression and the patient's sex should be considered in the identification and interpretation of these associated factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".