Managing money matters: Managing finances is associated with functional independence in MCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research suggests that overall experience participating in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) is associated with reduced IADL impairment in individuals with mild cognitive impairment, possibly because of an increased functional reserve. Given that difficulties managing finances tend to occur with mild cognitive impairment, this study explores whether experience managing one's finances is associated with independence across various IADLs. METHODS: Participants with a screen or baseline diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (n = 862) were taken from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study. Functional dependence and experience were quantified from the Functional Activities Questionnaire. RESULTS: No group differences between those with and without financial management experience existed in Mini-Mental State Examination scores, age, and years of education, although women were more likely to have experience managing finances (P < .001). Final chi-square analyses suggest that financial management experience is significantly associated with greater independence in the ability to follow TV, books, or magazines (P = .009) and remember appointments and important dates (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who are rated as having experience in managing their finances were also rated as being less dependent in their ability to follow and understand TV and books and in their ability to remember appointments and important dates. Neither causation nor the mechanisms underlying this relationship can be discerned from these analyses. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate whether engaging in financial tasks protects against early financial impairment, potentially through an increased functional reserve.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".