Is Bilingualism Associated With a Lower Risk of Dementia in Community-living Older Adults? Cross-sectional and Prospective Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether bilingualism is associated with dementia in cross-sectional or prospective analyses of older adults. METHODS: In 1991, 1616 community-living older adults were assessed and were followed 5 years later. Measures included age, sex, education, subjective memory loss (SML), and the modified Mini-mental State Examination (3MS). Dementia was determined by clinical examination in those who scored below the cut point on the 3MS. Language status was categorized based upon self-report into 3 groups: English as a first language (monolingual English, bilingual English) and English as a Second Language (ESL). RESULTS: The ESL category had lower education, lower 3MS scores, more SML, and were more likely to be diagnosed with cognitive impairment, no dementia at both time 1 and time 2 compared with those speaking English as a first language. There was no association between being bilingual (ESL and bilingual English vs. monolingual) and having dementia at time 1 in bivariate or multivariate analyses. In those who were cognitively intact at time 1, there was no association between being bilingual and having dementia at time 2 in bivariate or multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any association between speaking >1 language and dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".