MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725966674 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.102

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECTIVE MEMORY COMPLAINT, DEPRESSION, AND COGNITION IN HONG KONG CHINESE

2017· article· en· W2725966674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ting Liu, Jie Xu, Gary K. W. Wong, Jennifer Tang, Terry Yat Sang Lum

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionDepression (economics)Geriatric Depression ScaleMontreal Cognitive AssessmentComplaintDepressive symptomsPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitive declineGerontologyMedicinePsychiatryCognitive impairmentInternal medicineDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subjective memory complaint (SMC) is common in older people and has been found to associate with depressive symptoms and future cognitive decline. However, the relationship between them is complex and still inconclusive. Understanding the respective extent SMC and depression explain and predict changes in cognitive function may provide insight. Our study followed 2,081 community-dwelling older persons aged 65 or above in Hong Kong for one year, and measured their SMC with a dichotomous question, depression with Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and cognition with Cantonese Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Baseline SMC and GDS scores were moderately correlated (r = .42, p < .001), and they were associated with poorer cognition after controlling for age, gender and education at baseline (R2 change = .03, p < .001), and at follow-up (R2 change = .03, p < .001). However, only depression was predictive of changes in cognition, not age, gender, education, or SMC.

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)0.001
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207