Neuroimaging features of depression–frailty phenotype in older adults: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Frailty and late-life depression (LLD) often coexist and share several structural brain changes. We aimed to study the joint effect LLD and frailty have on brain structure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Academic Health Center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one participants (14 LLD+Frail and 17 Never-depressed+Robust). MEASUREMENT: LLD was diagnosed by a geriatric psychiatrist according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition for single episode or recurrent major depressive disorder without psychotic features. Frailty was assessed using the FRAIL scale (0-5), classifying subjects as robust (0), prefrail (1-2), and frail (3-5). Participants underwent T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in which covariance analysis of subcortical volumes and vertex-wise analysis of cortical thickness values were performed to access changes in grey matter. Participants also underwent diffusion tensor imaging in which tract-based spatial statistics was used with voxel-wise statistical analysis on fractional anisotropy and mean diffusion values to assess changes in white matter (WM). RESULTS: We found a significant difference in mean diffusion values (48,225 voxels; peak voxel: pFWER=0.005, MINI coord. (X,Y,Z) = -26,-11,27) between the LLD-Frail group and comparison group. The corresponding effect size (f=0.808) was large. CONCLUSION: We showed the LLD+Frailty group is associated with significant microstructural changes within WM tracts compared to Never-depressed+Robust individuals. Our findings indicate the possibility of a heightened neuroinflammatory burden as a potential mechanism underlying the co-occurrence of both conditions and the possibility of a depression-frailty phenotype 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".