Everyday cognitive functioning and global cognitive performance are differentially associated with physical frailty and chronological age in older Chinese men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intact cognition is a key determinant of quality of life. Here, we investigated the relative contribution of age and physical frailty to global and everyday cognition in older adults. METHODS: Data came from 1396 community-dwelling, healthy Chinese older adults aged 65 or above. We measured their global cognition using the Cantonese Chinese Montreal Cognitive Assessment, everyday cognition with the short Chinese Lawton Instrumental Activities Daily Living scale, and physical frailty using the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of Weight Scale and grip strength. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the comparative roles of age and physical frailty. RESULTS: In the global cognition model, age explained 12% and physical frailty explained 8% of the unique variance. This pattern was only evident in women, while the reverse (physical frailty explains a greater extent of variance) was evident in men. In the everyday cognition model, physical frailty explained 18% and chronological age explained 9% of the unique variance, with similar results across both genders. CONCLUSION: Physical frailty is a stronger indicator than age for everyday cognition in both genders and for global cognition in men. Our findings suggest that there are alternative indexes of cognitive aging than chronological age.
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 | 0.001 | 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".