THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LIFE SPACE MOBILITY AND COGNITION IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As people age, both mobility and cognitive function may decline at varying rates. This systematic review evaluated the relationship between cognition and life space mobility in older adults. Electronic databases PsycINFO, Embase, Ovid and CINAHL were searched using key terms including ‘life space’ AND ‘cognition’, yielding 163 abstracts for screening. Data were extracted from 31 peer-reviewed articles in English that included subjects over the age of 60, as well as quantitative measures describing the association between life space mobility and cognition. The range of correlation coefficients between life space mobility and the Mini-Mental State Examination were r= -0.47 to .491. Correlation values were r = -.128 to .259 for life space mobility and executive function, r= .206 to .230 for memory, and r= -.185 to .365 for perceptual and processing speed. Executive function had the highest predictive capacity for life-space mobility. Life space scores <40 were associated with significantly more long-term cognitive impairment as compared to those who were unrestricted. R-squared values for cognition and life-space mobility ranged from .113 to .491 explaining a small to moderate amount of variance. Furthermore, findings demonstrated that associations between cognition and life space may be mediated through sociodemographic, physical performance and mental status.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".