Biological Aging and the Future of Geriatric Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in understanding the biological bases of aging have intellectually revitalized the field of geriatric psychiatry and broadened its scope to include promoting successful aging and studying resilience factors in older adults. To describe the process by which this paradigm shift has occurred and illustrate its implications for treatment and research of late-life brain disorders, late-life depression is discussed as a prototype case. Prior phases of geriatric psychiatry research were focused on achieving depressive symptom relief, outlining pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between older and younger adults, and identifying moderators of treatment response. Building on this work, current geriatric psychiatry researchers have begun to disentangle the etiologic complexity in late-life depression by focusing on the causative aging-related processes involved, identifying both neurobiological and behavioral intermediates, and finally delineating depression subtypes that are distinguishable by their underlying biology and the treatment approach required. In this review, we discuss several age-related processes that are critical to the development of late-life mood disorders, outline implications of these processes for the clinical evaluation and management of later-life psychiatric disorders, and finally put forth suggestions for better integrating aging and developmental processes into the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".