Differential association of insulin resistance with cognitive and somatic symptoms of depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the associations of depressive symptoms with insulin resistance, evaluating somatic and cognitive depressive symptoms separately. METHODS: A total of 328 individuals (mean age 60 years) referred for exercise stress testing, taking part in the Mechanisms and Outcomes of Silent Myocardial Ischemia study, completed the Beck Depression Inventory II. A fasting venous blood sample was collected for assessments of insulin and glucose level; the HOMA-IR (homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance) was calculated. In principal component analysis, Beck Depression Inventory II items were forced to load onto two components (somatic and cognitive depressive symptoms). Adjusting for age, sex, BMI, medication use, smoking, physical activity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, general linear model analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the components and log HOMA-IR . RESULTS: Principal component analysis showed that nine items loaded onto a cognitive depressive symptoms component and 10 items loaded onto a somatic depressive symptoms component. When examined separately, both components were significantly associated with log HOMA-IR however, when including both components simultaneously in the model, only somatic depressive symptoms remained significantly associated with log HOMA-IR. Back-transformed, a one-unit change in somatic depressive symptoms was associated with a 1.07 (95% CI 1.002, 1.14) change in HOMA-IR and a one-unit change in cognitive depressive symptoms was associated with a 1.03 (95% CI 0.97, 1.14) change in HOMA-IR. CONCLUSION: Somatic depressive symptoms seem to be more strongly associated with insulin resistance than do cognitive depressive symptoms. Monitoring somatic depressive symptoms may be more appropriate than monitoring cognitive depressive symptoms among depressed individuals with high insulin resistance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".