Selective attrition and intraindividual variability in response time moderate cognitive change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Selection of a developmental time metric is useful for understanding causal processes that underlie aging-related cognitive change and for the identification of potential moderators of cognitive decline. Building on research suggesting that time to attrition is a metric sensitive to non-normative influences of aging (e.g., subclinical health conditions), we examined reason for attrition and intraindividual variability (IIV) in reaction time as predictors of cognitive performance. METHOD: Three hundred and four community dwelling older adults (64-92 years) completed annual assessments in a longitudinal study. IIV was calculated from baseline performance on reaction time tasks. Multilevel models were fit to examine patterns and predictors of cognitive change. RESULTS: We show that time to attrition was associated with cognitive decline. Greater IIV was associated with declines on executive functioning and episodic memory measures. Attrition due to personal health reasons was also associated with decreased executive functioning compared to that of individuals who remained in the study. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that time to attrition is a useful metric for representing cognitive change, and reason for attrition and IIV are predictive of non-normative influences that may underlie instances of cognitive loss in older adults.
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".