MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392665742 · doi:10.1177/23337214231214217

Relationship Between Cognitive Impairment and Depression Among Middle Aged and Older Adults in Primary Care

2024· article· en· W4392665742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alex D. Federman, Jacqueline Becker, Fernando Carnavali, Mónica Rivera Mindt, Dayeon Cho, Gaurav Pandey, Lili Chan, Laura M. Curtis, Michael S. Wolf, Juan P. Wisnivesky

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology and Geriatric Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDepression (economics)Cognitive impairmentDementiaMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPrimary careGerontologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyInternal medicineDiseaseFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To determine rates of previously undetected cognitive impairment among patients with depression in primary care. Methods: Patients ages 55 and older with no documented history of dementia or mild cognitive impairment were recruited from primary care practices in New York City, NY and Chicago, IL ( n = 855). Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-8. Results: The mean age was 66.8 (8.0) years, 45.3% were male, 32.7% Black, and 29.2% Latinx. Cognitive impairment increased with severity of depression: 22.9% in persons with mild depression, 27.4% in moderate depression and 41.8% in severe depression ( p = .0002). Severe depression was significantly associated with cognitive impairment in multivariable analysis (standardized β = −.11, SE = 0.33, p < .0001). Discussion: Depression was strongly associated with previously undetected cognitive impairment. Primary care clinicians should consider screening, or expand their screening, for both conditions.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontology and Geriatric MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207