“Crossover” in Depressive Symptoms Among Older Couples: Are Previous Findings Artifactual?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined effects of a partner’s depressive symptoms on those of a focal respondent. Method: Data were from the 2008-through-2014 waves of the Health and Retirement Study. Linear growth modeling was used to distinguish within- from between-person variation, and genetic instrumental variables to take endogeneity into account. Results: A partner’s 2008 depressive symptoms had no associations with within-person change in those of a respondent between 2010 and 2014. Corresponding linkages with their between-person variation in 2010 were positive and significant for both genders. Among women, these last estimates remained intact in genetic instrumental variable models restricted to white couples. Discussion: Results indicate that contrary to previous literature, late life relationships are not marked by “crossover” of depressive symptoms. Women’s affect may, however, be influenced by such transmission in the relationship’s history. Beyond depression, findings suggest current theories of dyadic health effects may partly rest on flawed evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".