Prevalence of Mental Disorders, Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Among Older Adults in Egypt: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Egypt, the population of older adults is rapidly growing. The last census in 2017 indicated that older adults numbered 94.8 million, which is a 2.56% increase from the 2006 census. There is growing evidence that the older population is at greater risk for some forms of mental disorders such as depression, dementia, and many more. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the current evidence regarding the prevalence of mental disorders among older adults in Egypt. This will be achieved by estimating the current prevalence of mental disorders and identifying any sociodemographic correlations with mental disorders. METHODS: An electronic search of 5 key databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, AMED, and PubMed) from their date of inception was conducted. In addition, scans of reference lists and searches of key journals, citations, and relevant internet resources were conducted. Studies were included if they were published in English, point prevalence studies, conducted with older Egyptians aged ≥60 years, and conducted using a validated diagnostic tool to ascertain mental disorders. Studies that did not meet any of these criteria were excluded. RESULTS: This systematic review started in November 2018. The literature search of the 5 databases revealed 343 papers. After screening titles and abstracts, scanning citations and reference lists, and searching internet sources, a total of 38 full-text articles were accessed, of which 16 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. We are currently in the process of data extraction and synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: This research will help bring the scale of mental disorders among older adults in Egypt to the forefront. This may help ensure evidence-based initiatives are established and that priority is given to resource allocation for geriatric mental health in Egypt. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Review CRD42018114831; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=114831. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14637.
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 | 0.045 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.005 |
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".