Toward Prevention of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults With Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Late-life depression has been associated with increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Predictors of increased risk are incompletely understood. Identification of potentially modifiable risk factors could facilitate prevention of MCI and dementia. This study aimed to determine which clinical characteristics are associated with increased risk of MCI among older adults with depression and normal cognition at baseline. METHODS: Data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center dataset were used. Study participants who attended a participating Alzheimer's Disease Center from September 2005 through September 2017 with normal cognition and a history of clinically defined depression (broadly based on DSM criteria) were followed until first diagnosis of MCI (or dementia when MCI was not diagnosed). RESULTS: A total of 2,655 study participants were followed for a median duration of 41.8 months. Of these, 586 (22.1%) developed either MCI (n = 509, 19.2%) or dementia (n = 77, 2.9%). In survival analyses, cognitive decline was associated with age, sex, education, baseline cognition, and several potentially modifiable risk factors including vascular risk factors, hearing impairment, vitamin B₁₂ deficiency, active depression within the last 2 years, and increased severity of depression. In an adjusted survival analysis, the only variables that remained significantly associated with development of MCI or dementia were female sex (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88), higher education (HR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99), and higher baseline cognition (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93), which were associated with reduced risk, and older age (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), active depression within the last 2 years (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.15-1.74), and increased severity of depression (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09), which were associated with increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Development of MCI is associated with several potentially modifiable risk factors in older adults with depression. Future studies should determine whether active management of risk factors could reduce incidence of MCI in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".