MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307424084 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1856

P4‐150: Suicidal ideation and changes of cognition, mood, aggression, and sleep quality under the age of 50 as the risk factors of elderly life

2015· article· en· W2307424084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hun Jeong Eun

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBeck Depression InventorySuicidal ideationMoodClinical psychologyPopulationAggressionAffect (linguistics)Pittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexPsychiatryCognitionDemographyPoison controlMedicineSuicide preventionAnxietySleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The changes in cognition, mood, aggression and sleep under th age of 50 is the assumption that may be a risk factor that can affect the lives of future seniors. It is to investigate about the suicidal ideation on changes of cognition, mood, aggression, and sleep quality under the age of 50 for prediction of elderly life. Adult population under 50 years old in Jeonju city of Korea, randomly collected data Demographic data, Scale for suicidal ideation (SSI-Beck), Mini mental state examination-Korean version (MMSE-K), Montreal cognitive inventory-Korean version (Moca-K), Beck depression Inventory (BDI), Korean version of mood disorder questionnaire (K-MDQ), Pittsburgh sleep quality Index (PSQI), Buss & Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI), IBM SPSS Statistics 22 version, Hypothesis testing by multiple regression analysis (dependent variable-suicidal ideation, independent variables-cognitive changes, mood changes, aggression, sleep quality), Informed consent for research questionnaires. N=95, Sex [men 43 (45.3%), women 52 (54.7%)], Age (mean, 47.232±11.2273, men 48.140±11.1667, women 46.481±11.3301), Marital Status [(unmarried 30 (31.6%), married 53 (55.8%), divorced 7 (7.4%), bereaved 5 (5.3%)], Education [elementary 6 (6.3%), middle 16 (16.8%), high 36 (37.9%), college 37 (38.9%)], Occupation [professional 15 (15.8%), self-business 10 (10.5%), official 3 (3.2%), laborer 9 (9.5%), housewife 18 (18.9%), religious 5 (5.3%), student 7 (7.4%), unemployed 28 (29.5%)], Height (men 1.693±0.06900 cm, women 1.5790±0.05266 cm, mean 1.6307±0.08306), Body weight (men 67.07±12.533 kg, women 58.23±6.659 kg, mean 62.23±10.668 kg), BMI (Body mass index) men 23.3067±3.41420, women 23.4158±3.01675, mean 23.3664±3.18575, cardiovascular history [no 82 (86.3%), yes 13 (13.7%)], Diabetes mellitus [no 81 (85.3%), yes 14 (14.7%)], Hypertension [no 79 (83.2%), yes 16 (16.8%)], Cerebrovascular disease [no 88 (92.6%), yes 7 (7.4%)], Neuropsychiatric History [no 67 (70.5%), yes 28 (29.5%)], Alcohol [no 66 (69.5%), past yes 14 (14.7%), present yes 15 (15.8%)], Tobacco [no 62 (65.3%), past yes 16 (16.8%), present yes 15 (15.8%)], Dementia (in family) [no 74 (77.9%), yes 21 (22.1%)], Multiple regression analyses–Pearson correlation analysis (1 tailed), SSI-Beck/BDI .533 (p=.000), SSI-Beck/PSQI .336 (p=.000), SSI-Beck/BDHI .387 (p=.000), BDI/PSQI .572 (p=.000), BDI/BDHI .281 (p=.003), BDI/Moca-k -.183 (p=.038), BDI/MMSE-K -.289 (p=.002) K-MDQ/PSQI .211 (p=.020), Moca-K/MMSE-K .575 (p=.000), MMSE-K/PSQI -.293 (p=.002), Model 1[R .615, R square .378, Predictors (cognition MMSE-K, Moca-K, Mood change (K-MDQ, BDI), Aggression (BDHI), Sleep quality (PSQI), Dependent variable (suicidal ideation)], ANOVA-Model 1 (F=8.907, p=.000), Coefficients-Model 1 (suicidal ideation, SSI-Beck, t=-2.709, p=.000). The above results suggest that the complicated changes of cognition, mood, aggression, and sleep quality under the age of 50 as risk factors in elderly life can induce suicidal ideation. Hence as close to the old age, it should be recognized the seriousness about cognitive change, mood change, aggression, and sleep quality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207