Prevalencia de depresión y factores sociodemográficos asociados a deterioro cognitivo en el adulto mayor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En Latinoamérica, se estima que el deterioro cognitivo afecta al 36% de los hombres y al 64% de las mujeres mayores de 65 años. Además, la prevalencia de depresión en esta misma población oscila entre el 10% y el 14%. El propósito de esta investigación fue identificar la relación entre la prevalencia de depresión, además de, determinar los principales factores sociodemográficos y su correlación con el deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores. La perspectiva metodológica fue el enfoque cuantitativo, los participantes se seleccionaron por muestreo por conveniencia según criterios de inclusión y exclusión, de diseño no experimental, de alcance correlacional y de corte transversal, se emplearon; el Test de Evaluación Cognitiva de Montreal (MoCA), el Cuestionario de Depresión Geriátrica de Yesavage y una Ficha Sociodemográfica. Para el análisis estadístico se empleó la prueba r de Pearson, la misma que permitió correlacionar las variables planteadas, como resultados se identificó la asociación negativa y moderada entre el deterioro cognitivo y el grado de escolaridad, nostrando una correlación de Pearson de -.606**, esto implica que las personas con menor nivel de estudios son más propensas a presentar algún nivel de deterioro cognitivo, asimismo, se identificó variaciones entre el sexo de los participantes y la influencia de la depresión en el deterioro cognitivo de personas mayores de 65 años, aunque la ubicación geográfica no mostró una correlación directa con las variables planteadas, es relevante destacar que las personas en áreas rurales tienen un acceso limitado a la educación, lo que se asocia con diferentes niveles de deterioro cognitivo. Abstract In Latin America, cognitive impairment is estimated to affect 36% of men and 64% of women over the age of 65. Furthermore, the prevalence of depression in this same population ranges between 10% and 14%. The purpose of this research was to identify the relationship between the prevalence of depression and to determine the main sociodemographic factors and their correlation with cognitive impairment in older adults. The methodological approach was quantitative; participants were selected by convenience sampling according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The design was non-experimental, correlational, and cross-sectional. The following were used: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), the Yesavage Geriatric Depression Questionnaire, and a Sociodemographic Form. For the statistical analysis, the Pearson r test was used, which allowed to correlate the proposed variables, where one of the direct results is the negative and moderate association between cognitive impairment and the degree of education, showing a Pearson correlation of -.606**, this implies that people with a lower level of education are more likely to present some level of cognitive impairment, likewise, variations were identified between the sex of the participants and the influence of depression on the cognitive impairment of people over 65 years of age, although the geographical location did not show a direct correlation with the proposed variables, it is relevant to highlight that people in rural areas have limited access to education, which is associated with different levels of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".