Feasibility and Effectiveness of Treatments for Depression in Elderly Medical Inpatients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of treatments for depressed elderly medical inpatients, MEDLINE was searched for potentially relevant articles published from January 1987 to August 1997, using the keywords "depression or depressive disorder" (exploded) and "aged." The bibliographies of relevant articles were searched for additional references. Fifteen reports met the following inclusion criteria: (a) published in English or French; (b) minimum age criterion of 55 and over or mean age 65 and over; (c) subjects admitted to the medical service of an acute care hospital; (d) used accepted criteria for depression; (e) examined treatment(s) for depression; and (f) reported outcomes as a depression diagnosis and/or symptom level. Information was abstracted independently from each article by two reviewers, tabulated, and compared. The limited evidence suggests contraindications to treatment in 38% to 87% of subjects who received a heterocyclic antidepressant compared to 4% of subjects who received the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine; rates of discontinuation and study completion were similar for heterocyclics, the SSRIs, and psychostimulants. All of the treatments (including social support/psychotherapy) appeared to be at least modestly effective in the short term.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".