Cognitive Performance and Everyday Functionality in Healthy Greek Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The examination of seniors’ mental health and ability to live independently gains increasingly attention (European Commission, 2014; Hertzog, Kramer, Wilson, & Lindenberger, 2009; Word Economic Forum, 2015). This relation has been examined largely in individuals that are reaching or have bridged the threshold of various forms of age-related neuropathology and disability (Cullum et al.,2002; Farias et al., 2011) . Recent meta-analysis depicts a moderate relation between cognitive performance and everyday functionality (Martyr and Clare, 2012; Royal et al., 2007).. No analogous effort for the examination of cognitive performance and everyday functionality in the healthy spectrum of aging exists. Everyday functionality should be examined in a culturally sensitive manner (Cherner, 2010) Aim: This study was set out to examine the relation between cognitive performance (CP) and everyday functionality (EF) in neuropsychologically intact seniors in Greece Results: EF scores declined statistically significant with age. CP (except TMT-A) was statistically correlated with EF. Neuropsychological measures and demographics explained a similar proportion of the variance in EF. Memory, age, education, and income where statistically significant independent predictors of EF. Conclusion: CP and EF in neuropsychologically intact Greek older adults seems to be related. This relation is small to moderate. The “pure” effect of aging on EF seems to be moderate. Better memory, greater education, and larger income seem to be significant contributors of better EF in older age. METHODS • Performance in everyday functionality measures declined statistically significant with age (-.471 -.481). • Performance in neuropsychological assessments (except TMT-A) and everyday functionality assessments where statistically significant correlated (.217 .388). • In a regression analysis, statistically significant models emerged that explained 36.7% 58.5% of the variance in everyday functionality. The cognitive measures explained 20% 29% of the variance, whereas demographics 22% 33% of the variance. All everyday functionality measures were independently predicted by memory, age and education. RESULTS (CLICK TO EDIT) Participants : 104 cognitively Greek neuropsychologically intact seniors ( Mage = 59.91, SD = 10.86),Petersen’s (2004) criteria for the detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment were applied. Instruments: A battery of neuropsychological tests: • Mini Mental State Examination (Fountoulakis et al., 2000) • Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Kounti et al., 2007) • Verbal Fluency, Trail Making Test A and B (Vlachou & Kosmidou, 2002) • Greek version of the California Verbal Learning Test (Vlachou et al., 2012) They also completed two everyday functionality tests, which were modified to reflect the local cultural context (Cherner, 2010) • Greek versions of the Observed tasks of Daily Living – Revised (Diehl et al., 2005). • Everyday Problem Test (Willis, 1993) Both cognitive performance and everyday functionality assessments were carefully chosen to be sensitive in fluctuations of performance in the healthy spectrum of aging (Moore, Palmer, Patterson, & Jeste, 2007; Pavlidis & Vivas, 2013; Royal et al., 2007). Demographics : The participants reported their age, education, and income. Ethics: The study received ethics approval from the Department of Sociological Studies in the University of Sheffield. It was concluded that the performance of neuropsychologically intact Greek older adults on neuropsychological and everyday functional assessments is related. This relation is small to moderate. Everyday functionality is declining with age, although the “pure” effect of aging is moderate. Age seems not to be the sole contributing factor in everyday functionality decline. Poorer education and lower income seem to be a significant influential factors as well. From the cognitive domains, memory seems to have a pivotal role in the maintenance of a good everyday functionality in older age. CONCLUSIONS RESULTS Memory Age Education Income AR2 cognition AR 2 demographics AR 2 OTDL-Gscore .197* -.308* .271** .211* 20 22 36.7 EPT-Gscore .200* -.191* .503** 29 33 58.5
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".