Depressive Symptoms and Physical Health of Caregivers of Persons with Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".