Cognition and mobility show a global association in middle- and late-adulthood: Analyses from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given our aging population, there's great interest in identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline. Studies have highlighted the relationship between aspects of mobility and cognitive processes. However, cognition and mobility are both multifaceted concepts and their interrelationships remain to be well defined. RESEARCH QUESTION: Here, we firstly aimed to replicate cross-sectional associations between objective measures of mobility and cognition. Second, we tested whether these associations remained after the consideration of multiple age-related confounders. Finally, to test the hypothesis that the association between mobility and cognition is stronger in older adults, we examined the moderating effect of age in the association between mobility and cognition. METHODS: In the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, 28,808 community-dwelling adults (aged 45-87; 51% female) completed mobility (gait, balance and chair stands) and cognitive (memory, executive function and processing speed) assessments. General linear models were used to examine mobility-cognition relationships and the moderating effect of age. RESULTS: Cognitive measures were significantly associated with mobility measures (all p < 0.001). Further, age significantly moderated the mobility-cognition relationship, with the strength of the associations generally increasing with age. SIGNIFICANCE: All cognitive measures were related to indices of mobility, suggesting a global association. In our moderation analyses, the mobility-cognition relationship often increased with age. However, the small effect sizes observed suggest that mobility is, in isolation, not a strong correlate of cognitive performance in middle and late-adulthood.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".