Intraindividual variability is related to cognitive change in older adults: Evidence for within-person coupling.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the authors addressed the longitudinal nature of intraindividual variability over 3 years. A sample of 304 community-dwelling older adults, initially between the ages of 64 and 92 years, completed 4 waves of annual testing on a battery of accuracy- and latency-based tests covering a wide range of cognitive complexity. Increases in response-time inconsistency on moderately and highly complex tasks were associated with increasing age, but there were significant individual differences in change across the entire sample. The time-varying covariation between cognition and inconsistency was significant across the 1-year intervals and remained stable across both time and age. On occasions when intraindividual variability was high, participants' cognitive performance was correspondingly low. The strength of the coupling relationship was greater for more fluid cognitive domains such as memory, reasoning, and processing speed than for more crystallized domains such as verbal ability. Variability based on moderately and highly complex tasks provided the strongest prediction. These results suggest that intraindividual variability is highly sensitive to even subtle changes in cognitive ability.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it