Relationship between Depression and Lipid Metabolism in the Elderly with Hypertension.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to examine the relationship between depressive symptoms and the lipid metabolism in the elderly with hypertension, we recruited 311 outpatients aged 65 or older with hypertension and defined depression as patients with 6 or more symptoms on Geriatric Depression Scale short form. We further classified depressed patients into three groups: mild depressed with 6-7 symptoms, moderate depressed with 8-10 symptoms and severe depressed with 11 or more symptoms. Serum total cholesterol, serum HDL cholesterol and serum LDL cholesterol levels were significantly higher in female depressed patients than those in nondepressed patients (TC, 194.6 +/- 30.1 vs 208.0 +/- 32.8 p < 0.01; HDL, 67.3 +/- 19.3 vs 72.3 +/- 16.2 p < 0.01; LDL, 107.6 +/- 26.5 vs 116.0 +/- 29.1 p < 0.05). In male patients, serum lipids were not significantly associated with depressive symptoms but depressed patients were significantly older than nondepressed patients (75.3 +/- 6.2 vs 78.0 +/- 5.9 p < 0.05). Concerning the analysis of the severity of depression, serum total cholesterol and serum LDL cholesterol levels were significantly higher in mildly depressed patients than nondepressed patients in females and the same tendency was seen in male patients. No linear associations were shown between the severity of depression and serum lipids. We concluded that hyperlipidemia may be associated with depressive symptoms in elder patients with hypertension and that it might be related the severity of depression. We need to further investigate the relationship between depression and lipid metabolism in larger population samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".