Association of age and gender with anxiety disorders in older adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide an estimate of 12-month and lifetime prevalence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) anxiety disorders in older adults based on published studies on this topic and to identify the impact of gender and age. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Six databases were searched, and manual searches through reference lists of selected articles and reviews were performed. When the information was available, summary effects were calculated for the prevalence of each anxiety disorder and for every age and gender subgroups. Summary odd ratios (OR) were calculated to compare the prevalence of an anxiety disorder according to age and gender. RESULTS: A total of 6464 studies were identified, and 16 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Prevalence was significantly higher in women than men for generalized anxiety disorder (12 month OR = 6.10, P = 0.001; lifetime OR = 1.96, P = 0.001), 12-month social anxiety disorder (OR = 2.07, P = 0.01), and lifetime post-traumatic stress disorder (OR = 1.93, P = 0.002). The prevalence of specific phobia was significantly lower in both the 75 to 84 and 85 years and above age groups when compared with the 65 to 74 years age group (OR = 0.70, P = 0.004 and OR = 0.63, P = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the tendency for women to experience a greater prevalence of anxiety disorders remains present in older adults. Specific phobia was the only disorder to be less frequent with advancing age. This is likely to change with the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria because this new DSM version now indicates that fear of falling is a possible type of specific phobia and fear of falling is generally more frequent in the oldest age groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".