A Multi-study Coordinated Meta-analysis 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 these findings has been limited by differences in measurements and samples, and by study design and statistical analyses confounding between-person differences with within-person changes. In this article, we conducted a coordinated analysis and summary meta-analysis of new results on the aging-related dynamics linking pulmonary function and cognitive performance. METHODS: We performed coordinated analysis of bivariate growth models in data from 20,586 participants across eight longitudinal studies to examine individual differences in baseline level, rate of change, and occasion-specific variability in pulmonary and cognitive functioning. Results were summarized using meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found consistent but weak baseline and longitudinal associations in levels of pulmonary and cognitive functioning, but no associations in occasion-specific variability. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide limited evidence for a consistent link between simultaneous changes in pulmonary and cognitive function in a normal aging population. Further research is required to understand patterns of onset of decline and differences in rates of change within and across physical and cognitive functioning domains, both within-individuals and across countries and birth cohorts. Coordinated analysis provides an efficient and rigorous approach for replicating and comparing results across independent longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.026 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".