Does Cognitive Ability Explain Inaccuracy in Older Adults’ Self-Reported Medication Adherence?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the accuracy of younger-old and older-old adults’ self-reported adherence over a 3-month period and the potential interactive relationship between self-report accuracy and cognitive abilities. For 3 months, 71 younger-old ( M = 68.10, range = 57 to 74) and 62 older-old ( M = 80.31, range = 75 to 89) adults had their actual and self-reported adherence monitored. Cognitive tests assessing episodic and prospective memory were given at the beginning of the study. Multilevel models indicate that 32% of the variability in objective adherence was from between-person differences whereas 68% was from within-person fluctuations. There were age differences in the coupling of actual and self-reported adherence over time, such that younger-old adults’ self-reports less accurately reflected their actual adherence. Subsequent models indicate that age differences in the coupled relationship were further moderated by cognitive abilities. Results suggest that the relationships among age, cognitive abilities, and accuracy of self-reported adherence are far from simple.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it