Cognitive Function in the Prefrailty and Frailty Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between cognitive function and frailty. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using data from Wave 1 of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, a population representative study of adults aged 50 and older in the Republic of Ireland. SETTING: Community-dwelling adults completed a home- or health center-based nurse-led assessment. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 50 and older without a history of stroke, Parkinson's disease, or severe cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score <18) and not taking antidepressants (N = 4,649). MEASUREMENTS: A cognitive battery including MMSE, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Color Trails Test, Cambridge Mental Disorders of the Elderly Examination memory and executive function subtests, 10-word recall, Sustained Attention to Response Task, and choice reaction time was used to generate composite scores of cognitive domains. Frailty was assessed according to weakness, slowness, exhaustion, low physical activity, and weight loss. RESULTS: After full adjustment, cognitive function across all domains except self-rated memory and processing speed was significantly worse in prefrail and frail participants (P < .05) than in those who were robust. Weakness and walking speed were most consistently linked to poorer cognition, whereas low activity and weight loss were not independently associated with any cognitive domain. Exhaustion was associated with global cognition (B = -0.18 ± 0.06), with some evidence of links to objectively measured and self-rated memory. CONCLUSION: Cognitive function is worse across multiple cognitive domains in prefrail and frail individuals aged 50 and older than in those who are robust, although the absolute differences are small after adjusting for confounding factors.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".