Cognitive impairment and life satisfaction in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life in dementia has been studied in clinical settings. There is less population-based research on life satisfaction and cognition. OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare the overall life satisfaction (LS), LS with material circumstances (LS (material)), and LS with social circumstances (LS (social)) of older adults with no cognitive impairment, with cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND), and with dementia; (2) To examine the effect of cognition on LS across a broad spectrum of cognition; and (3) To explore the effect of factors such as depressive symptoms, functional impairment, education, and social support. POPULATION: 1620 community-dwelling older adults with a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score > 10, sampled from a representative list were interviewed. MEASURES: Age, gender, education, social networks, and social supports were all self-reported. The MMSE, the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D), and the Older Americans Resource Survey (OARS) were used. Dementia was diagnosed by clinical examination using DSM-IIIR criteria. LS was measured using the Terrible-Delightful Scale. Factor analysis identified two factors: LS (material), and LS (social). A global item measuring overall LS was also used. RESULTS: Those with dementia and CIND had lower LS than those with normal cognition, but the effect was relatively small. There was a gradient in LS which extended into the normal range of cognition. Depressive symptoms and functional status were strongly associated with LS. CONCLUSIONS: Cognition is associated with LS, but the effect is fairly small. Most older adults are satisfied with life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".