Associations between cognitive impairment in advanced cancer patients and psychiatric disorders in their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether cognitive impairment in advanced cancer patients is associated with a heightened frequency of psychiatric disorders in their primary caregivers. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-six patient-caregiver dyads were interviewed and administered the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire and the Structured Clinical Interview of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition approximately 3.4 months before the patient's death. The Structured Clinical Interview of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition was administered to caregivers again approximately 6 months after the patient's death. RESULTS: Forty-six (12.9%) patients displayed signs of mild cognitive impairment at the baseline interview. After adjustment for relevant confounders, patient cognitive impairment was significantly associated with caregiver pre-loss major depressive disorder [OR 6.88 (95% CI 1.32-35.92); p = 0.02], without associated increases in suicidality. There were no significant associations between patient cognitive impairment and caregiver pre-loss generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, or grief. Likewise, there were no significant associations between patient cognitive impairment and caregiver post-loss psychiatric disorders, but caregivers of cognitively impaired patients appeared to be less satisfied with the patient's manner of death (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of cognitively impaired advanced cancer patients appear at heightened risk of major depression that resolves after the patient's death. Further study with a larger sample and more sensitive longitudinal cognitive measures is indicated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".