Systematic Review of the use of Depression Anxiety Stress scale 21(Dass-21) in the elderly: Practical applicability across countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to identify the practical applicability of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress scale (DASS-21) in elderly across countries. Online database searches (EMBASE, PubMed, SciELO) were performed to identify sample characteristics, the purpose of using this scale, and the location of participant recruitment. The search terms included “Aged” OR “Elderly” with the term "dass 21” OR “depression, anxiety, stress scale-21”. The initial data search yielded 855 studies, 833 were excluded. Finally, 22 full-text were analyzed for the study purposes, developed in 13 different countries, including 14,339 participants. The samples were composed predominantly of women, with ages ranging between 60 and 91 years. DASS-21 was used in clinical and non-clinical elderly. The findings have demonstrated that the DASS-21 is useful in monitoring depression, anxiety, and stress in this population across.
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 | 0.016 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".