Collaborative care depression management for older adults: level of comorbidity does not affect outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harpole LH, Williams JW, Olsen MK, et al . Improving depression outcomes in older adults with comorbid medical illness. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2005;27:4–12.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Does comorbid medical illness modulate the effectiveness of collaborative care management for depression in older adults? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: Not clear. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: Single blind (assessors blind to study assignment). ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: Twelve months. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: Eighteen primary care clinics in the United States; time period not stated. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 1801 people aged over 60 years old, with current major depression or dysthymia (DSM-IV). Each participant’s number of chronic medical comorbidities diagnosed or treated over the previous three years was ascertained. Exclusion criteria included: history of bipolar disorder or psychosis, current treatment by a psychiatrist, current drinking problems or severe cognitive impairment, or acute risk of suicide. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: Improving … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGeneral%2Bhospital%2Bpsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DGen%2BHosp%2BPsychiatry%26rft.aulast%253DHarpole%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%2BH.%26rft.volume%253D27%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D4%26rft.epage%253D12%26rft.atitle%253DImproving%2Bdepression%2Boutcomes%2Bin%2Bolder%2Badults%2Bwith%2Bcomorbid%2Bmedical%2Billness.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.genhosppsych.2004.09.004%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15694213%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.09.004&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15694213&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F4%2F105.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227253700003&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".