Contrasting olfaction, vision, and audition as predictors of cognitive change and impairment in non-demented older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the relative utility of a particular class of noninvasive functional biomarkers-sensory functions-for detecting those at risk of cognitive decline and impairment. Three central research objectives were examined including whether (a) olfactory function, vision, and audition exhibited significant longitudinal declines in nondemented older adults; (b) multiwave change for these sensory function indicators predicted risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI); and (c) change within persons for each sensory measure shared dynamic time-varying associations with within-person change in cognitive functioning. METHOD: A longitudinal sample (n = 408) from the Victoria Longitudinal Study was assembled. Three cognitive status subgroups were identified: not impaired cognitively, single-assessment MCI, and multiple-assessment MCI. RESULTS: We tested independent predictive associations, contrasting change in sensory function as predictors of cognitive decline and impairment, utilizing both linear mixed models and logistic regression analysis. Olfaction and, to a lesser extent, vision were identified as the most robust predictors of cognitive status and decline; audition showed little predictive influence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the potential utility of deficits in olfactory function, in particular, as an early marker of age- and pathology-related cognitive decline. Functional biomarkers may represent potential candidates for use in the early stages of a multistep screening approach for detecting those at risk of cognitive impairment, as well as for targeted intervention. (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".