MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6884737268 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.782

Pseudodementia or depression? An unresolved issue. Cognitive alterations in a population of geriatric patients

2023· article· en· W6884737268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeriatric Depression ScaleBeck Depression InventoryDepression (economics)MoodMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPopulationDementiaRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between mood disorders, particularly depression and cognitive impairment is complex. The symptoms of depression in the elderly include confusion, sleep alterations, low concentration, cognitive deficits, and somatic complaints that may are also present in dementia, with depression being often a prodrome. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed at investigating the presence of cognitive disturbances in outpatients over 65 years of age consulting us for a mood episode, as well as to investigate the possible relationships between cognitive and depressive symptoms. METHODS: The study included 57 older patients attending the Psychiatric Clinic of Pisa, with a diagnosis of a major mood episode according to DSM-5 criteria. The psychometric scales included: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Beck Inventory Scale (BDI), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), to measure the severity of depression; Short Psychiatric Evaluation Schedule (SPES), to assess organic mental deficits; Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), to assess depression in people with dementia; Adult Autism Subthreshold (AdAS) Spectrum, to evaluates the eventual presence of specific features of the autistic spectrum disorder(ASD). Moreover, patients were also assessed for cognitive screening with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). RESULTS: The HAM-D total score was 10.18±6.33, that of BDI 12.79± 9.89, that of GDS 12.69±8.25 and that of CSDD 8.35±6.25. The showed a MoCA value was 21.30±4.86, that of FAB 14.12±3.92, and that of MMSE 25.06±4.20. The MoCA total score positively correlated with those of the FAB and of the MMSE, while the FAB score with the MMSE score. A positive correlation was found between SPES and the HAM-D, BDI, CSDD and GDS total scores. The AdAS score positively correlated with that of MMSE. By correlating scores of depressive dimensions with those of cognitive functions, a positive correlation was noted between FAB total score and those of the HAM-D, BDI, CSDD and SPES CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a possible link between the presence of ASD and depressive symptoms from the one side and cognitive performance and executive functions from the another side. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed Central→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→