Systematic Review of Pulmonary Function and Cognition in Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substantial research is dedicated to understanding the aging-related dynamics among individual differences in level, change, and variation across physical and cognitive abilities. Evaluating replicability and synthesizing findings has been limited by differences in measurements, samples, study design, and statistical analyses that confound between-person differences with within-person changes. Here, we systematically reviewed longitudinal results on the aging-related dynamics linking pulmonary function and cognitive performance. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used to systematically review longitudinal studies of pulmonary function and cognition. RESULTS: Only four studies thoroughly investigating cognitive and pulmonary longitudinal associations (three or more measurement occasions) were identified. Expanded review criteria identified three studies reporting two measurement occasions, and seven studies reporting one measurement of pulmonary function or cognition and two or more measurements of the other. We identified numerous methodological quality and risk for bias issues across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite documented correlational associations between pulmonary function and cognition, these results show there is very limited research thoroughly investigating their longitudinal associations. This highlights the need for longitudinal data, rigorous methodological design including key covariates, and clear communication of methods and analyses to facilitate replication across an array of samples. We recommend systematic study of outcome measures and covariates, inclusion of multiple measures (e.g., peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and forced vital capacity), as well as application of the same analytic approach across multiple datasets.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".