A nomogram to predict the risk of cognitive impairment in patients with depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was to describe the cognitive function status in patients with depressive disorder and to construct a nomogram model to predict the risk factors of cognitive impairment in these patients. From October 2019 to February 2021, a total of 141 patients with depressive disorder completed the survey in two hospitals. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) was used with a cutoff score of 26 to differentiate cognitive impairment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors. A nomogram was then constructed based on the results of the multivariable logistic regression analysis. The patients had an average MoCA score of 23.99 ± 3.02. The multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that age (OR: 1.096, 95% CI: 1.042-1.153, p < 0.001), education (OR: 0.065, 95% CI: 0.016-0.263, p < 0.001), depression severity (OR: 1.878, 95% CI: 1.021-3.456, p = 0.043), and sleep quality (OR: 2.454, 95% CI: 1.400-4.301, p = 0.002) were independent risk factors for cognitive impairment in patients with depressive disorder. The area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was 0.868 (95% CI: 0.807-0.929), indicating good discriminability of the model. The calibration curve of the model and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (p = 0.571) demonstrated a well-fitted model with high calibration. Age, education, depression severity, and sleep quality were found to be significant predictors of cognitive function. A nomogram model was developed to predict cognitive impairment in patients with depressive disorder, providing a solid foundation for clinical interventions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".