Does Presentation of Late-Life Generalized Anxiety Disorder Change with Advancing Age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders in older adults. Given the aging population, it is important to determine if there are age-related variations in the presentation of GAD in older adults. The present study examined the relationship between age and the clinical presentation of GAD in people aged 60 to 87 years (N = 109, M = 68.2). A structured diagnostic interview was conducted and participants completed measures of GAD severity, tendency to worry, behavioral manifestations of GAD, depression, and disability. Most of the analyses performed did not show a significant relationship between age and different indices of GAD presentation. A comparison of the youngest (≤67 years) and oldest (>67 years) participants, based on the median age of the sample, showed that the second group had significantly higher rates of comorbid anxiety disorders (60.8% vs 39.7%; χ² = 4.85, p = .03) and death-related worries (54.9% vs 34.5%; χ² = 4.44, p = .04). Conversely, the youngest group reported more work or school-related worries (60.5% vs 25.0%; χ² = 9.15, p = .002). Overall, the results show that the clinical presentation of GAD does not vary much according to age among older adults. However, the observed differences suggest that clinicians should take into account the presence of comorbid anxiety disorders and the sources of worries according to the age of their client.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".