Detection of depression in older adults by family and friends: distinguishing mood disorder signals from the noise of personality and everyday life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The capacity of friends and family member informants to make judgments about the presence of a mood disorder history in an older primary care patient has theoretical, clinical, and public health significance. This study examined the accuracy of informant-reported mood disorder diagnoses in a sample of primary care patients aged 65 years or older. We hypothesized that the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of informant reports would vary with the patient's personality. METHODS: Hypotheses were tested in 191 dyads consisting of patients and their friends or relatives (informants) recruited from primary care settings. Gold-standard mood disorder diagnoses were established at consensus conferences based on a review of medical charts and data collected in a structured interview with the patient. Patients completed an assessment battery that included the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity of informant-derived mood disorder diagnoses were related to patient personality. Sensitivity of informant-derived lifetime mood disorder diagnoses was compromised by higher Extraversion and higher Agreeableness. Specificity of informant-derived lifetime mood disorder diagnoses was compromised by lower Agreeableness and higher Conscientiousness. CONCLUSION: Patient personality has implications for the accuracy of mood disorder histories provided by friends and family members. Given that false negatives can have grave consequences, we recommend that practitioners be particularly vigilant when interpreting collateral information about their extraverted, agreeable patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".