The association between depressive symptoms and limitations in disability domains among US adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the association of depressive symptoms and their severity with overall disability and disability domains, and to assess temporal changes in these associations. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2018 were analyzed. A total of 15,565 participants were included, with 1383 (8.19 %) reporting depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were strongly associated with overall disability (aOR = 7.82; 95 % CI = 6.27, 9.75; p < 0.001) and with six specific domains (aOR = 2.54 for hearing, 2.84 for seeing, 10.53 for concentrating, 4.42 for walking, 6.01 for dressing or bathing, and 7.36 for doing errands alone; all p < 0.001). Each unit increase in PHQ-9 score was linked to a 21 % increase in the odds of overall disability (aOR = 1.21; 95 % CI = 1.19, 1.23; p < 0.001) and to a 9 %-25 % increase in the odds of domain-specific difficulties. Both cognitive-affective (aOR = 1.35; 95 % CI = 1.30, 1.40) and somatic scores (aOR = 1.36; 95 % CI = 1.33, 1.39) were associated with overall disability and domain-specific difficulties, with each unit increase linked to 13 %-45 % higher odds. Temporal analysis indicated that depressive symptoms are linked to a higher prevalence of disability, with this association persisting and slightly increasing over time. Our findings indicated the association between depressive symptoms and disability. Future studies should further replicate our results and evaluate the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".