MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387035031 · doi:10.1111/psyg.13031

Cognitive frailty and its association with depression, anxiety and stress during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic among older adults in the transforming cognitive frailty into <scp>later‐life self‐sufficiency</scp> (<scp>AGELESS</scp>) study

2023· article· en· W4387035031 on OpenAlex
Kiirtaara Aravindhan, Kàren Morgan, Sumaiyah Mat, Tengku Aizan Hamid, Rahimah Ibrahim, Nor Izzati Saedon, Kejal Hasmuk, Hazlina Mahadzir, Maw Pin Tan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychogeriatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDepression (economics)Geriatric Depression ScaleCognitionPsychologyGerontologyPerceived Stress ScaleHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryStress (linguistics)Depressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive frailty describes the co-occurrence of cognitive impairment and physical frailty and is classified into reversible and irreversible phenotypes. Data on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic imposed lockdowns, locally known as the Movement Control Order (MCO), on the psychological status of cognitively frail older adults remain scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the relationship between depression, anxiety, stress and cognitive frailty among older adults during the MCO. METHOD: Participants aged above 60 years from three ageing cohorts in Malaysia were interviewed virtually. The Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness and Loss of Weight scale, blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale, anxiety subscale of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale and four-item Perceived Stress Scale measured frailty, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), depression, anxiety and stress, respectively. RESULTS: Cognitive frailty data were available for 870 participants, age (mean ± SD) = 73.44 ± 6.32 years and 55.6% were women. Fifty-seven (6.6%) were robust, 24 (2.8%) had MCI, 451 (51.8%) were pre-frail, 164 (18.9%) were pre-frail+MCI, 119 (13.7%) were frail and 55 (6.3%) were frail+MCI. There were significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between the controlled MCO and recovery MCO. Using multinomial logistic regression, pre-frail (mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) = 1.16 (0.932, 1.337), frail (1.49 (1.235, 1.803) and frail+MCI (1.49 (1.225, 1.822)) groups had significantly higher depression scores, frail (1.19 (1.030, 1.373)) and frail+MCI (1.24 (1.065, 1.439)) had significantly higher anxiety scores and pre-frail (1.50 (1.285, 1.761)), frail (1.74 (1.469, 2.062)) and frail+MCI (1.81 (1.508, 2.165)) had significantly higher stress scores upon adjustments for the potential confounders. The MCO was a potential confounder in the relationship between depression and prefrail+MCI (1.08 (0.898, 1.340)). CONCLUSION: Frail individuals with or without MCI had significantly higher depression, anxiety and stress than those who were robust. Increased depression and stress were also observed in the pre-frail group. Interventions to address psychological issues in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic could target prefrail and frail individuals and need further evaluation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it