MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729684330 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.113

THE IMPACTS OF SPOUSES’ HEALTH CONDITIONS ON DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS

2017· article· en· W2729684330 on OpenAlexaff
Joohong Min, Jeremy B. Yorgason, Janet Fast, Norah Keating

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthDepressive symptomsContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)PsychologyPartner effectsMultilevel modelAssociation (psychology)Longitudinal studyMarital statusPhysical healthClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicineCognitionPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spousal health decline can negatively affect one’s mental health outcomes; however, less is known about how the quality of marital relationships and spousal caregiving moderates this association and how this association may be sensitive to the different chronic health conditions considered in this study. To addressed our research questions, we conducted multilevel analyses using 3487 couples age 45 + at baseline from the 4 waves of the Korean Longitudinal Study on Aging (KLoSA; 2006 -2012). Results indicated that the husband’s cancer and stroke were related to increased depressive symptoms among wives while these associations were not found among husbands. We also found a significant moderating effect of marital satisfaction and caregiving status. The findings suggest that considering gender, relationship quality and caregiving context within couples are important. Health care providers are encouraged to be aware of the possibility that couples are connected in both physical health and mental health.

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)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207