Sex differences in subjective cognitive impairment and clinical correlates in Chinese patients with subthreshold depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Subthreshold depression (SD) is a global mental health problem given its high prevalence, comorbidity, functional impairment, and its association with increased service utilization. However, currently little is known about sex differences of SD in cognitive impairment with clinical correlates. This study aims to explore sex differences in subjective cognitive impairment and clinically associated risk factors in Chinese patients with subthreshold depression (SD). METHODS: A total of 126 patients with SD, 40 males and 86 females, aged 18-45 years, were included in this cross-sectional observational study. Their general information, psychological assessments, and psychiatric symptom assessments were collected online. The Patient Health Questionnaire depression-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression (PDQ-D), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) with 3 subdomains were used. The obtained scores were analyzed with partial correlation and multiple linear regression analysis models. RESULTS: Our results showed that females had significantly higher PDQ-D-20 total score than males. However, the differences in TAS-20 and subdomain score according to sex were not significant. Notably, TAS-20 and DDF (difficulty describing feelings) subdomain contributed to cognitive impairment in males, whereas both PHQ-9 total score and TAS-20 or DDF subdomain contributed to cognitive impairment in females. CONCLUSION: These findings revealed significant sex differences in cognitive impairment and clinical correlates in SD, which should be further followed-up in the future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".