Cognitive scores, even within the normal range, predict death and institutionalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia is a predictor of death and institutionalization. It is less clear if variations in cognition within the normal range predict adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine if variation at the high end of cognitive test scores predicts mortality or institutionalization, independent of the effect of potential confounders. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a population-based longitudinal study with an initial data collection in 1991 and follow-up five years later. SETTING: Community-dwelling seniors living in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 9008 consenting seniors were sampled from representative population registries in Canada. MEASURES: Age, gender, marital status, the Mini-Mental State Examination, self-rated health, and activities of daily living. OUTCOMES: Death or institutionalization over the five years of follow-up. RESULTS: Mini-Mental State Examination scores predicted mortality and institutionalization. The unadjusted odds ratio of mortality was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.84, 0.86) per point on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and the adjusted odds ratio was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.93, 0.97). The unadjusted odds ratio for institutionalization was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.82, 0.85), and the adjusted odds ratio was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.90, 0.94). This effect was present even in analyses restricted to those within the normal range of Time 1 Mini-Mental State Examination scores. CONCLUSIONS: Low normal cognitive test scores predict adverse outcomes. Clinicians should consider close clinical follow-up of those with low normal cognitive test scores. Further research is needed to target seniors for follow-up and possible intervention to decrease mortality and institutionalization risk.
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 | 0.000 | 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".