Associations Between Psychological Distress, Learning, and Memory in Spouse Caregivers of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family caregivers of older adults experience high levels of chronic stress and psychological distress, which are known to impair cognition. Very little research, however, has assessed the impact of caregiving on key cognitive outcomes such as learning and memory. This study compared 16 spouse caregivers with 16 matched controls using standardized neuropsychological measures of learning, episodic memory, and working memory. Analyses compared groups on these cognitive outcomes and examined whether psychological distress mediated group differences in cognition. Results indicated that caregivers were significantly more distressed than non-caregivers and exhibited deficits in learning, recall of episodic information after short and long delays, and working memory. Furthermore, the majority of group differences in cognitive outcomes were mediated by psychological distress. This study adds to a small body of literature demonstrating impaired cognitive functioning among family caregivers. It also suggests that distress is one of a number of possible underlying mechanisms leading to disruptions in learning and memory in this population.
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".