Perceived discrimination: Associations with physical and cognitive function in older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Perceived discrimination has been associated with poor physical and psychological health. There is limited research examining perceived discrimination in older adults, and its effects on health in later life. The aim of this study is to extend research in this area by examining longitudinal associations between reported everyday discrimination and physical and cognitive function in older adults. METHOD: The present study uses a national sample of 4,886 community-dwelling individuals aged 60 years and older from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Perceived discrimination was assessed at baseline by asking participants about the frequency with which they experienced 5 everyday discriminatory situations. Cognitive functioning, comprising tests of recall and a test of verbal fluency, and physical functioning, comprising a timed walk test, were measured identically at baseline and follow-up. Multiple regression analyses were performed, adjusting for sociodemographic and health status variables. RESULTS: At baseline, 39.3% of participants reported being discriminated against at least a few times a year. After adjusting for demographic variables, health status, and depression, baseline discrimination was associated with poorer recall (B = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.44, -0.08]) and slower gait speed (B = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.03, -0.004]) at follow-up. Discrimination was not associated with poorer verbal fluency (B = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.22]) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of discrimination is common among older adults and is associated with poorer physical and cognitive functioning. Addressing issues around discrimination in older adults may contribute to maintaining functioning in later life. (PsycINFO Database Record
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".