Linking Biological and Cognitive Aging: Toward Improving Characterizations of Developmental Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronological age is the most frequently employed predictor in life-span developmental research, despite repeated assertions that it is best conceived as a proxy for true mechanistic changes that influence cognition across time. The present investigation explores the potential that selected functional biomarkers may contribute to the more effective conceptual and operational definitions of developmental time. METHODS: We used data from the Victoria Longitudinal Study to explore both static and dynamic biological or physiological markers that arguably influence process-specific mechanisms underlying cognitive changes in late life. Multilevel models were fit to test the dynamic coupling between change in theoretically relevant biomarkers (e.g., grip strength, pulmonary function) and change in select cognitive measures (e.g., executive function, episodic and semantic memory). RESULTS: Results showed that, independent of the passage of developmental time (indexed as years in study), significant time-varying covariation was observed linking corresponding declines for select cognitive outcomes and biological markers. DISCUSSION: Our findings support the interpretation that cognitive decline is not due to chronological aging per se but rather reflects multiple causal factors from a broad range of biological and physical health domains that operate along the age continuum.
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 | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".