Ethnic differences in functional and neuropsychological test performance in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies outline discrepancies in neuropsychological test profiles in African American and European American samples, despite similarities on major background factors. In our clinical sample of convenience, African American and European American older adults did not diverge on age, years of formal education, or global cognitive impairment. We predicted that ethnic groups would differ on a financial index, reading, and naming measures, but not on form discrimination and health problem-solving tasks. Results showed the expected patterns with the exception of form discrimination, which was lower in the African American group. Ethnicity no longer predicted standing on financial and nonverbal discrimination measures once we adjusted scores to equate for word-reading ability. In contrast, ethnicity status continued to explain significant variance in confrontation naming following adjustment for reading. When ethnic groups were subdivided by sex, European American men tended to have the highest scores of all four subgroups despite having equivalent levels of education. Therefore, future studies should examine the impact of cognitive activity throughout adulthood on real-world function and neuropsychological test performance among groups defined by both ethnicity and sex. In conclusion, in African American and European American elders seen for clinical assessment, literacy appeared to be associated with discrepant scores on a measure of real-world financial knowledge and skill, as well as with differences in verbal and nonverbal neuropsychological measures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".