MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939938891 · doi:10.3233/jad-181176

Switching Ability Mediates the Age-Related Difference in Timed Up and Go Performance

2019· article· en· W2939938891 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Langeard, Ramzi Houdeib, Kathia Saillant, Navin Kaushal, Maxime Lussier, Louis Bherer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroop effectMediationTimed Up and Go testCognitionPsychologySignificant differenceTest (biology)Developmental psychologyEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitive agingCognitive psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-related mobility and cognitive declines are closely linked, but their relationship is complex and needs to be further investigated. The study aimed to test if cognition (processing speed, inhibition and switching performances) mediates the age-related difference in mobility. Mediation analyses were used to test whether processing speed, inhibition and switching performances on the Stroop test independently mediate the relationship between age and performances at the Timed Up and Go (TUG). Results revealed that only switching performances mediated the age-related difference in TUG (65.1% of the total effect) supporting the notion that executive control plays a critical role in older adults' mobility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207