MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131045843 · doi:10.1093/gerona/60.6.744

Do Depressive Symptoms Predict Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia?

2005· article· en· W2131045843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Gatz, Suzanne L. Tyas, Philip St. John, Patrick R. Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaDepressive symptomsDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are common in seniors and may predict dementia. The objective of this study was to evaluate multiple measures of depressive symptoms to determine whether they predict subsequent Alzheimer's disease (AD) or dementia. METHODS: This population-based cohort study with 5-year follow-up included 766 community-dwelling seniors (ages 65+ years) in Manitoba, Canada. Measurements considered were the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, participant-reported medical history, and duration of depression. RESULTS: Total CES-D score was a significant predictor of AD and dementia when categorized as a dichotomous variable according to the cutoff scores of 16 and 17; a CES-D cutoff of 21 was a significant predictor of AD and a marginally significant predictor of dementia. When analyzed as a continuous variable, CES-D score was marginally predictive of AD and dementia. Neither participant-reported history of depression nor participant-reported duration of depression was significant in predicting AD or dementia. CONCLUSION: Because depressive symptoms as measured by the CES-D predict the development of AD and dementia over 5 years, clinicians should monitor their older patients with these symptoms for signs of cognitive impairment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

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

Citations151
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series ASame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207