Depression, Antidepressants, and Bone Health in Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between depression, antidepressant use, and bone health in older adults and the implications for treatment. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: All studies that measured depression or antidepressant exposure and bone mineral density (BMD). PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 60 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Age, site of BMD measurement using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), measure of depression or depressive symptoms, association between BMD changes, and depression or antidepressant use. RESULTS: Nineteen observational studies met the final inclusion criteria; no experimental studies were found. Several cross-sectional and longitudinal studies found that depression or depressive symptoms were associated with a decrease in BMD. Few studies and only two longitudinal studies addressed the association between serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressant use and a decrease in BMD and they had conflicting results. CONCLUSION: Depression and depressive symptoms are associated with low bone mass and accelerated bone loss in older adults; putative mechanisms underlying this relationship are discussed. There is insufficient evidence that SRI antidepressants adversely affect bone health. Thus, a change in current recommendations for the use of antidepressants in older adults is not justified at the present time. Given the high public health significance of this question, more studies are required to determine whether (and in whom) antidepressants may be deleterious for bone health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".