Socioeconomic, emotional, and physical execution variables as predictors of cognitive performance in a Spanish sample of middle-aged and older community-dwelling participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive performance is not easily predicted, since different variables play an important role in the manifestation of age-related declines. The objective of this study is to analyze the predictors of cognitive performance in a Spanish sample over 50 years from a multidimensional perspective, including socioeconomic, affective, and physical variables. Some of them are well-known predictors of cognition and others are emergent variables in the study of cognition. METHODS: The total sample, drawn from the "Longitudinal Study Aging in Spain (ELES)" project, consisted of 832 individuals without signs of cognitive impairment. Cognitive function was measured with tests evaluating episodic and working memory, visuomotor speed, fluency, and naming. Thirteen independent variables were selected as predictors belonging to socioeconomic, emotional, and physical execution areas. Multiple linear regressions, following the enter method, were calculated for each age group in order to study the influence of these variables in cognitive performance. RESULTS: Education is the variable which best predicts cognitive performance in the 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79 years old groups. In the 80+ group, the best predictor is objective economic status and education does not enter in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Age-related decline can be modified by the influence of educational and socioeconomic variables. In this context, it is relevant to take into account how easy is to modify certain variables, compared to others which depend on each person's life course.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".