Differentiation of the pattern of cognitive impairment between depressed and non-depressed patients with dementia living in long-term care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The principal objective of this study is to examine the cognitive profile of patients with dementia plus (D+ group) and without (D- group) concomitant depression. METHOD: The D+ (N = 61) and D- (N = 89) patients were recruited in long-term care facilities. The depression status of the participants was determined using the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. Cognitive functioning was assessed using the Hierarchic Dementia Scale (HDS). RESULTS: The analyses first indicated that on the total HDS score, patients of the D+ group exhibited more severe cognitive impairment compared to those of the D- group. Further analyses revealed that the difference between groups pertained to perception, attention/memory, calculation, and language functions. Moreover, secondary analyses revealed that the cognitive deficits of the D+ group were associated with behavioral (agitation and retardation, in particular), but not with mood-related, symptoms of depression. Interestingly, ideational symptoms of depression (suicide and self-depreciation, in particular) were positively correlated with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: These findings add to those of previous studies showing that D+ and D- patients differ not only regarding the presence or absence of depressive symptoms, but also regarding cognitive manifestations. This study thus reinforces the need to detect and treat accurately depression in dementia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".