Latent class growth modeling of depression and anxiety in older adults: an 8-year follow-up of a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common mental health conditions in the older adult population. Understanding the trajectories of these will help implement treatments and interventions. AIMS: This study aims to identify depression and anxiety trajectories in older adults, evaluate the interrelationship of these conditions, and recognize trajectory-predicting characteristics. METHODS: Group-based dual trajectory modeling (GBDTM) was applied to the data of 3983 individuals, aged 65 years or older who participated in the Korean Health Panel Study between 2008 and 2015. Logistic regression was used to identify the association between characteristics and trajectory groups. RESULTS: Four trajectory groups from GBDTM were identified within both depression and anxiety outcomes. Depression outcome fell into "low-flat (87.0%)", "low-to-middle (8.8%)", "low-to-high (1.3%)" and "high-stable (2.8%)" trajectory groups. Anxiety outcome fell into "low-flat (92.5%)", "low-to-middle (4.7%)", "high-to-low (2.2%)" and "high-curve (0.6%)" trajectory groups. Interrelationships between depression and anxiety were identified. Members of the high-stable depression group were more likely to have "high-to-low" or "high-curved" anxiety trajectories. Female sex, the presence of more than three chronic diseases, and being engaged in income-generating activity were significant predictors for depression and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Dual trajectory analysis of depression and anxiety in older adults shows that when one condition is present, the probability of the other is increased. Sex, having more than three chronic diseases, and not being involved in income-generating activity might increase risks for both depression and anxiety. Health policy decision-makers may use our findings to develop strategies for preventing both depression and anxiety in older adults.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".