Orthostatic hypotension in patients with late‐life depression: Prevalence and validation of a new screening tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in a sample of late life depression (LLD) patients and to determine the validity of a standardized questionnaire, the Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ). Secondarily, we wished to assess variables associated with OH. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study on 82 consecutive geriatric outpatients presenting with LLD. OH was defined as a fall in systolic blood pressure of greater than 20 mm Hg and/or 10 mm Hg on diastolic blood pressure on an orthostatic stress test from sitting to standing. Logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with OH. RESULTS: The prevalence of OH as measured on the orthostatic stress test and on the OHQ was 28% and 57%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the OHQ were 69.6% (95% CI 47%-87%), 47.5% (95%CI 34%-61%), 0.54 (95% CI: 0.43-0.64), 34% (95%CI 21%-49%), and 80% (95%CI 63%-92%), respectively. Females were more likely to have OH (OR: 3.96, 95%CI 1.06-14.89, P = .041), and those married or in a common-law relationship were less likely to have OH (OR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.72, P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: OH is common in patients with LLD conferring them a risk of gait instability and falls. Females had a higher risk of having OH while participants who were married or in a common-law relationship were less likely to have OH. Although the OHQ is a quick to administer paper-based screening test, it did not show adequate diagnostic accuracy in patients with LLD seen in a routine psychiatry clinic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".