MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Síntomas depresivos como factor de riesgo de dependencia en adultos mayores

2007· article· es· W2152263166 on OpenAlexaff
José Alberto Ávila‐Funes, Efrén Melano‐Carranza, Hélène Payette, Hélène Amieva

Bibliographic record

VenueSalud Pública de México · 2007
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicAging, Health, and Disability
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDepressive symptomsHumanitiesPsychologyPsychiatryArtCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between depressive symptoms and dependence in activities of daily living. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants, aged 70 to 104 (n= 1 880), were evaluated twice (2001 and 2003). Depressive symptoms were established by a modified version of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, whereas functional dependence was assessed with Lawton & Brody and Katz scales. Dependence implies the attendance and assistance of another person to accomplish the activity. Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine the effect of depressive symptoms on incident dependence. RESULTS: At baseline, 37.9% had depressive symptoms. After two years, 6.1 and 12.7% developed functional dependence for one or more ADL and IADL, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that depressive symptoms were a risk factor to the development of functional dependence only for the instrumental activities for daily living. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms are a risk factor for functional dependence. Systematic screening it seems necessary in the evaluation of geriatric 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations43
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSalud Pública de MéxicoSame topicAging, Health, and DisabilityFrench-language works237,207