The association of spousal depressive symptoms and cognitive function among older adults: mediation and moderated mediation analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To test whether contagious depressive symptoms mediate the association between spousal depressive symptoms (spousal-DS) and the other spouse’s cognitive function, and test the moderated mediation of social activities engagement and sleep quality.Study design A total of 3,230 adults aged ≥60 and one of his/her close relatives were interviewed in 2016 in Xiamen, China.Methods Cognitive function and depressive symptoms were measured by MoCA and GDS-15/CES-D-10, respectively. Social activities engagement and sleep quality were self-reported. Mediation and moderated mediation were tested by PROCESS macro with 5000 bootstrapping re-samples.Result Among all, 1,193 pairs were husband-wife with complete information and were included. The mean ages of older adults and their spouses were 68.35 ± 6.53 and 66.53 ± 7.91 years, respectively. The mean MoCA and GDS-15 scores for older adults were 22.21 ± 5.45 and 1.73 ± 2.17, respectively. The average score of CES-D-10 for spouses was 14.18 ± 4.77. Spousal-DS were associated with cognitive functions of older adults via the contagious depressive symptoms (indirect effect: −0.048, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-0.075, −0.028)). Such mediation can be buffered by attending social activities (interaction: −0.062, 95% CI: (-0.111, −0.013)) and improving sleep quality (interaction: −0.034, 95% CI: (-0.057, −0.012)).Conclusion Cognitive function of older adults was associated with his/her spouse’s depressive symptoms, and the association was mediated by contagious depressive symptoms and moderated by social activities as well as sleep quality.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".