MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090268012 · doi:10.1002/gps.2247

Factor analysis of the Montgomery Aasberg depression rating scale in an elderly stroke population

2009· article· en· W2090268012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lasse Farner, Jørgen Wagle, Kjell Flekkøy, Torgeir Bruun Wyller, Brynjar Fure, Brynhild Stensrød, Knut Engedal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological StatusAnhedoniaPsychologyStroke (engine)Montreal Cognitive AssessmentSadnessDepression (economics)Rating scalePopulationClinical psychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyNeuropsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineCognitionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Cognitive impairmentDevelopmental psychologyAnger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depression is frequent in elderly stroke patients, and the pathophysiology may involve psychological as well as organic mechanisms. AIM: To explore construct validity of the Montgomery Aasberg Depression Rating Scale using factor analysis and investigate whether symptom clusters of depression after stroke are associated with patient characteristics. METHODS: A sample of 163 stroke patients was assessed by the Montgomery Aasberg Depression Rating Scale. Pre-stroke assessment was accomplished by means of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE), the Barthel ADL Index and patient's medical history. Post-stroke assessment was performed with the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Star Cancellation Test, the Barthel ADL Index, the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Information was collected from the patients' records. A principal components factor analysis followed by oblique rotation was performed. RESULTS: Among the patients, 56.4% scored between 7 and 19 on the Montgomery Aasberg Depression Rating Scale, and 13% had a score above 19. The factor analysis resulted in three factors, called anhedonia (lassitude, inability to feel, suicidal thoughts, loss of appetite), sadness (observed sadness, reported sadness, pessimism) and agitation (inner tension, lack of concentration, disturbed sleep). Anhedonia correlated with cognitive impairment, whereas sadness correlated with sensorimotor and cranial nerve deficits. Agitation had low internal reliability and did not correlate with any systematic patients characteristics. CONCLUSION: We found three distinct factors. The factor anhedonia is related to cognitive impairment, sadness to neurological impairment due to the stroke and agitation to somatic factors not directly related to the stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geriatric PsychiatrySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207