MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2732163785 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.2250

SOCIAL NETWORKS ASSOCIATED WITH COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG CHINESE ELDERS: A ONE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP STUDY

2017· article· en· W2732163785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentGerontologyPsychological interventionPsychologyChinaSocial network (sociolinguistics)Association (psychology)Social cognitive theoryCognitive impairmentMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to examine social networks of Chinese elders and explore their influences on cognitive function and the risk for elders having mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A longitudinal database of elderly Chinese from urban China during 2014–2015 was analyzed. A sample of 1295 elders was investigated in 2014 and a total of 614 (47.4%) were followed up in 2015. Two types of regression models were used to explore influences of social networks on cognitive function status (a change in the MoCA score) and the risk for having MCI (MoCA score < 26) among these urban elders. The approximate age of this group was 74 years and they had on average one chronic disease. More than half (57%) were at-risk of having MCI. The most important component of their social networks was family (100%) with the majority having face-to-face contact (91.3%). More complex and stable social networks were statistically significant in association with better cognitive function status. The findings imply that developing various types of social ties at an earlier age is beneficial to maintaining cognitive function over time. This study suggests that social interventions and services can provide opportunities for Chinese elders to keep or rebuild connections with old friends, classmates, colleagues, relatives, and acquaintances, which may be more helpful in maintaining cognitive function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→