MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130167567 · doi:10.1177/0898264303256514

Depressive Symptoms and Physical Health of Caregivers of Persons with Cognitive Impairment

2003· article· en· W2130167567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Norm O’Rourke, Philippe Cappeliez, Sophie Guindon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)DementiaDepressive symptomsMedicineCognitionClinical psychologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryLongitudinal studyPhysical illnessGerontologyPsychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Research indicates that caregivers of persons with cognitive impairment are at elevated risk for clinical depression. The current study examines the association between physical illness and depressive symptoms among caregivers over a 5-year interval. METHODS: Participants were recruited as part of a longitudinal study of dementia prevalence in Canada (N = 382). Persons with cognitive loss and their primary caregivers were randomly identified from each Canadian province. RESULTS: Subsequent to control for sociodemographic variables, patient illness characteristics and initial depressive symptomatology, baseline health of caregivers contributed significantly to the prediction of depressive symptoms five years later. In contrast, depressive symptomatology was not a significant predictor of physical health over this same interval (again controlling for sociodemographic variables, patient illness characteristics, and caregivers' health at baseline). DISCUSSION: These analyses provided partial support for reciprocal effects between physical illness and depression. Findings are discussed in terms of the applicability of a model of reciprocal effects to older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207