Depression in holocaust survivors: profile and treatment outcome in a geriatric day hospital program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The profile of depressive symptoms and the outcome of treatment in Holocaust Survivors (HS) versus non-Holocaust Survivors (NS), attending a Psychiatric Day Hospital Program for depression, were evaluated retrospectively using a clinical database. Approximately 24% of the study population were Holocaust Survivors (HS). The HS group was more likely to receive a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or episode as one of their diagnoses. The HS group, in particular those survivors who had been in ghettos or in concentration camps, were more likely to be given a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Both groups showed improvement from baseline in their ratings of depression on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Geriatric Depression Scale at the time of discharge (p<0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their ratings of depression either at admission, at discharge or in their degree of improvement. Likewise, there was no significant difference between the groups in the profile of their depression, as per the sub-scales of the HDRS, with the exception that the HS group displayed more 'insight' than the NS group (p=0.002). The NS group scored higher on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale compared to the HS group (119.1 versus 125.4, p<0.001), even when level of education was covaried; however, language may be an important confound. In conclusion, there was no significant difference in the profile or outcome of depression between groups. However, the HS group was more likely to receive a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, displayed more 'insight', and appear to differ in their cognitive profile.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".