MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056475992 · doi:10.1177/0898264308315430

Life Course Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Cognitive Function Among the Elderly Population of Seven Capitals in Latin America and the Caribbean

2008· article· en· W2056475992 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional illiteracyCognitionSocioeconomic statusGerontologyLife course approachPopulationDemographyOddsCognitive skillPsychologyLogistic regressionMedicineEnvironmental healthDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of life course socioeconomic disadvantages (SED) on cognitive function in later life. METHOD: Data originate from a survey of people 60 and older living in seven Latin American and Caribbean cities. Cognitive function was measured with a modified Mini-Mental State Examination and the Pfeffer Scale of Functional Capacity. Homogeneity tests were used to pool data. Associations between cognitive function and SED were evaluated, fitting logistic regressions. RESULTS: Cognitive impairment (CI) prevalence ranged from 0.3% to 6.5% in men and 1.2% to 10.1% in women. Childhood rural living, poor childhood health, illiteracy, housewife or farmer occupation, and insufficient income were associated with CI in all seven cities. The odds of CI increase with cumulative exposure to disadvantages along life course. CONCLUSIONS: Life course SED is related to cognitive function later in life. Difficulty in properly distinguishing cognitive function from test performance remains an issue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.312 · 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