MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2389233000

Relationship of depressive disorders and cognitive function impairment for the elderly

2013· article· en· W2389233000 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
QU Zheng-wan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Journal of Chinese People's Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbal fluency testDepression (economics)CognitionLogistic regressionMajor depressive disorderMontreal Cognitive AssessmentClinical psychologyPsychologyDepressive symptomsPsychiatryCognitive impairmentMedicineNeuropsychologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To explore possible effects of depressive disorder on cognitive function for the elderly,and investigate relationship of them.Methods: Montreal cognitive assessment(MoCA) and simplified version of the SCID depression disorders questionnaire were administered to 3903 participants from 24 villages(neighborhood) committees in Pudong new area.Results: There were 519 cases with depressive disorder,wherein the most cases suffered from dysthymia(54.91%) and the least cases had major depression(5.4%).There were significant differences in factor scores like MoCA total score,memory,attention,verbal fluency,abstract ability,and delayed recall between elderly depressive disorder group and negative group(P 0.05).Logistic regression analysis showed that gender,occupation,life ability,diabetes and hyperlipoidemia were risk factors for elderly depressive disorder.Conclusions: The cognitive function impairment of the elderly with depressive disorder is broad and is positively correlated with the depsression severity.An active treatment can effectively improve the cognitive fuction levels.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Journal of Chinese People's HealthSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207