Psychosocial Risk Factors for Cognitive Decline in Late-Life Depression: Findings from the MTLD-III Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment and depression frequently co-occur in late life. There remains a need to better characterize psychosocial risk factors of cognitive decline in older adults with depression. We hypothesized that certain psychosocial factors would be associated with higher risk of cognitive decline in individuals with late-life depression. METHODS: 130 individuals aged ≥ 65 years who had achieved remission from a major depressive episode were randomized to donepezil or placebo and then closely followed for two years. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we examined the association between baseline median household income, education level, race, marital status, and social support and cognitive decline over the follow-up. RESULTS: Lower interpersonal support (OR = 0.86 [0.74-0.99], p = .04) and lower baseline global neuropsychological score (OR = 0.56 [0.36-0.87], p = .001) predicted shorter time to conversion to MCI or dementia in univariate models. These exposures did not remain significant in multivariate analyses. Neither socioeconomic status nor other psychosocial factors independently predicted cognitive diagnostic conversion (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find reliable associations between cognitive outcome and any of the psychosocial factors examined. Future large-scale, epidemiological studies, ideally using well-validated subjective measures, should better characterize psychosocial risk factors for cognitive decline in late-life 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".