Unraveling the link between hypertension and depression in older adults: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To perform a meta-analyses to understand the current status of and risk factors for depression in older adults with hypertension. Methods: Eight electronic databases and two clinical trial registries were searched to identify studies examining the incidence of and risk factors for depression among older adults with hypertension. The databases were searched from inception to June 2023. The included studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the evaluation tool recommended by the Agency for Health care Research and Quality. Results: A total of 18 studies with 29,694 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that the prevalence of depression in older adults with hypertension was 29%. The risk factors for depression among this population included sex [OR value 95% confidence interval 2.24 (1.32, 3.82)], education level [OR 95% CI 1.79 (1.02, 3.14)], residence [OR 95% CI 1.37 (1.24, 1.52)], comorbidities [OR 95% CI 1.79 (1.69, 1.90)], hypertension classification [OR 95% CI 2.81 (1.79, 4.42)], marital status [OR 95% CI 1.50 (1.33, 1.69)], sleep status [OR 95% CI 2.86 (2.21, 3.69)], activity limitation [OR 95% CI 3.42 (2.84, 4.13)], drinking [OR 95% CI 2.25 (1.58, 3.19)], social support [OR 95% CI 3.26 (2.42, 4.41)], living alone [OR 95% CI 1.79 (1.57, 2.04)], stressful events [OR 95% CI 1.62 (1.39, 1.90)], and course of diseases [OR 95% CI 3.23 (2.10, 4.97)]. Conclusion: The incidence of depression in older adults with hypertension is high, and there are many risk factors. Clinical health care professionals should intervene early to target the above risk factors to reduce the incidence of depression in older adults with hypertension worldwide. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (york.ac.uk), identifier [CRD42023417106].
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".