Do depressive symptoms at time of diagnosis affect the course of dementia over one year?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Depressive symptomatology has long been associated with dementia. The exact form of this association (e.g. whether depression is a risk factor and/or a prodrome) is uncertain. While much research has gone into confirming this link, there has been little investigation into the effects of depression on dementia progression after diagnosis. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between depressive symptomatology at dementia diagnosis and cognitive and behavioural decline over a one year period as represented by clinical evaluations. Methods In 375 rural and remote patients who had been diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), or non‐AD dementia, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) was completed at first visit to assess depressive symptomatology. The same cohort was evaluated for cognitive and behavioural decline through the completion of five clinical tests performed at first visit and at a one year follow up. Cognitive decline was assessed using the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR), and two subsets of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI‐S and NPI‐D). Functional decline was assessed using the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). Correlations were examined between CES‐D score and change in cognitive and functional scores over one year in the subgroups of Patients with all types of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (ATD, N=375 ), Alzheimer’s type dementia (N=187), and Mild Cognitive Impairment (=74). Results No significant correlations were observed between cognitive or functional decline and baseline depressive symptomatology. Conclusion Severity of depressive symptomatology at the time of diagnosis does not predict severity of cognitive or functional decline at one year in patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".