Change in perceived stress and 2‐year change in cognitive function among older adults: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged or severe stress can adversely affect older adults' cognitive function, but population-based studies investigating this relationship over time are rare. Previous studies have largely focused on stress either evaluated at a single time point or linked to specific life events. This study aimed to investigate whether a change in perceived stress over 2 years predicts a change in cognitive performance over the same time period in a population-based sample of older adults. Data from the first 2 waves of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing were analyzed. Five thousand and seventy adults aged 50 and older completed the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale and measures of verbal fluency, immediate and delayed word recall 2 years apart. A first differences regression model revealed that the change in stress over 2 years was inversely associated with a change in immediate word recall performance, even after adjustment for change in possible confounders (B = -0.030, 95% CI [-.056, -.004], p < .05). No association was observed for delayed recall or verbal fluency performance. Change in perceived stress is inversely correlated with change in immediate recall, even over a short period. Stress modifying interventions could potentially reduce the risk of cognitive decline associated with ageing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".