44 Cognitive Intraindividual Variability as a Predictor of Functional Outcomes in a Sample of Precariously Housed Individuals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Precariously housed individuals are exposed to multiple adverse factors negatively impacting neurocognitive functioning. Additionally, this population is subjected to poor life outcomes, such as impaired psychosocial functioning. Neurocognitive functioning plays an important role in psychosocial functioning and may be especially critical for precariously housed individuals who face numerous barriers in their daily lives. However, few studies have explicitly examined the cognitive determinants of functional outcomes in this population. Cognitive intraindividual variability (IIV) involves the study of within-person differences in neurocognitive functioning and has been used as marker of frontal system pathology. Increased IIV has been associated with worse cognitive performance, cognitive decline, and poorer everyday functioning. Hence, IIV may add to the predictive utility of commonly used neuropsychological measures and may serve as an emergent predictor of poor outcomes in at-risk populations. The objective of the current study was to examine IIV as a unique index of the neurocognitive contributions to functional outcomes within a large sample of precariously housed individuals. It was hypothesized that greater IIV would be associated with poorer current (i.e., baseline) and long-term (i.e., up to 12 years) psychosocial functioning. Participants and Methods: Four hundred and thirty-seven adults were recruited from single-room occupancy hotels located in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada (Mage = 44 years, 78% male) between November 2008 and November 2021. Baseline neurocognitive functioning was assessed at study enrolment. Scores from the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), the Role Functioning Scale (RFS), the physical component score (PCS) and the mental component score (MCS) of the 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument were obtained at participants’ baseline assessments and at their last available follow-up assessment to represent baseline and long-term psychosocial functioning, respectively. Using an established formula, an index of IIV was derived using a battery of standardized tests that broadly assessed verbal learning and memory, sustained attention, mental flexibility, and cognitive control. A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted to predict baseline and long-term social and role functioning (average across SOFAS and RFS scores), and PCS and MCS scores from IIV. In each of the models, we also included common predictors of functioning, including a global cognitive composite score, age, and years of education. Results: The IIV index and the global composite score did not explain a significant proportion of the variance in baseline and long-term social and role functioning (p > .05). However, IIV was a significant predictor of baseline (B = -3.84, p = .021) and long-term (B = -3.58, p = .037) PCS scores, but not MCS scores (p > .05). The global composite score did not predict baseline or long-term PCS scores. Conclusions: IIV significantly predicted baseline and long-term physical functioning, but not mental functioning or social and role functioning, suggesting that IIV may be a sensitive marker for limitations in everyday functioning due to physical health problems in precariously housed individuals. Critically, the present study is the first to show that IIV may be a useful index for predicting poor long-term health-related outcomes in this population compared to traditional neuropsychological measures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».