Dispositional optimism and depression risk in older women in the Nurses´ Health Study: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispositional optimism is a potentially modifiable factor and has been associated with multiple physical health outcomes, but its relationship with depression, especially later in life, remains unclear. In the Nurses´ Health Study (n = 33,483), we examined associations between dispositional optimism and depression risk in women aged 57-85 (mean = 69.9, SD = 6.8), with 4,051 cases of incident depression and 10 years of follow-up (2004-2014). We defined depression as either having a physician/clinician-diagnosed depression, or regularly using antidepressants, or the presence of severe depressive symptoms using validated self-reported scales. Age- and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) across optimism quartiles and for a 1-standard deviation (SD) increment of the optimism score. In sensitivity analyses we explored more restrictive definitions of depression, potential mediators, and moderators. In multivariable-adjusted models, women with greater optimism (top vs. bottom quartile) had a 27% (95%CI = 19-34%) lower risk of depression. Every 1-SD increase in the optimism score was associated with a 15% (95%CI = 12-18%) lower depression risk. When applying a more restrictive definition for clinical depression, the association was considerably attenuated (every 1-SD increase in the optimism score was associated with a 6% (95%CI = 2-10%-) lower depression risk. Stratified analyses by baseline depressive symptoms, age, race, and birth region revealed comparable estimates, while mediators (emotional support, social network size, healthy lifestyle), when combined, explained approximately 10% of the optimism-depression association. As social and behavioral factors only explained a small proportion of the association, future research should investigate other potential pathways, such as coping strategies, that may relate optimism to depression risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".