Healthy ageing in the Nun Study: definition and neuropathologic correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the concept of healthy ageing has stimulated considerable interest, no generally accepted definition has been developed nor has its biological basis been determined. OBJECTIVE: To develop a definition of healthy ageing and investigate its association with longevity and neuropathology. METHODS: Analyses were based on cognitive, physical, and post-mortem assessments from 1991 to 1998 in the Nun Study, a longitudinal study of ageing in participants 75+ years at baseline. We defined three mutually exclusive levels of healthy ageing (excellent, very good, and good) based on measures of global cognitive function, short-term memory, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, and self-rated function. Mortality analyses were based on 636 participants; neuropathologic analyses were restricted to 221 who had died and were autopsied. RESULTS: Only 11% of those meeting criteria for the excellent level of healthy ageing at baseline subsequently died, compared with 24% for the very good, 39% for the good, and 60% for the remaining participants. Survival curves showed significantly greater longevity with higher levels of healthy ageing. The risk of not attaining healthy ageing, adjusted for age, increased two-fold in participants with brain infarcts alone, six-fold in those with Alzheimer neuropathology alone, and more than thirteen-fold in those with both brain infarcts and Alzheimer neuropathology. CONCLUSIONS: The biological validity of our definition of healthy ageing is supported by its strong association with mortality and longevity. Avoiding Alzheimer and stroke neuropathology is critical to the maintenance of healthy ageing, and the presence of both pathologies dramatically decreases the likelihood of healthy ageing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".