Mechanisms of Age-Related Cognitive Change and Targets for Intervention: Social Interactions and Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of biological and physical factors on cognitive aging are widely studied. Less is known about the role of psychosocial factors such as stress and social relationships for cognitive functioning. METHODS: Speakers in Session IV of the Summit focused on possible mechanisms linking social interactions and stressful experiences to cognitive changes with aging. RESULTS: Elevated cortisol, repetitive thinking, negative emotions, neuroticism, chronic stress, and early life adversity were negatively associated with memory and other cognitive dimensions in later life. In contrast, supportive social relationships were found to be positively related to cognitive functioning. Some evidence was provided for multidirectional, causal relationships involving stress and negative affect as both antecedents and consequences of cognitive decline. CONCLUSIONS: The findings contribute to understanding the potential underlying causal processes linking psychosocial factors and cognitive aging with a developmental focus on the etiology of declines and onset of cognitive impairments. This work provides an important foundation for future research to identify modifiable factors and to design interventions to minimize cognitive declines and optimize cognitive health in adulthood.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".