MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162986690 · doi:10.3390/healthcare9050593

The Reciprocal Relationship between Frailty and Depressive Symptoms among Older Adults in Rural China: A Cross-Lag Analysis

2021· article· en· W3162986690 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xuehui Wang, Kaijun Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Social Science Fund Youth ProjectYork University
KeywordsDepressive symptomsDepression (economics)Psychological interventionMedicineChinaLongitudinal studyGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Objective: This study aimed to investigate the reciprocal relationship between frailty and depressive symptoms using longitudinal data among older adults in China. (2) Methods: Data derived from 2014 and 2017 waves of a longitudinal study of 1367 older adults aged 70–84 years, living in rural areas of Jiangsu Province, China. Cross-lagged panel model and a multiple group model were used to examine the temporal effect of frailty on depressive symptoms and vice versa. (3) Results: Frailty was associated with subsequent increase in depressive symptoms, such that participants with higher levels of frailty increase the risks of depressive symptoms (b = 0.090, p < 0.01). Depressive symptoms were significant predictors of increased frailty (b = −0.262, p <0.001). However, older men and older women had no significant differences in the reciprocal relationship between frailty and depressive symptoms. (4) Conclusions: In conclusion, we find a significant bi-directional relationship between frailty and depressive symptoms. This finding confirms the dyadic model of frailty and depression. Implications for interventions and policy to help frail and depressive older adults are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207