MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2983397036 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igz038.2311

THE LONG ARMS OF CHILDHOOD INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATION ON TERMINAL DECLINE: EVIDENCE FROM LOTHIAN BIRTH COHORT 1921

2019· article· en· W2983397036 on OpenAlexaff
Dorina Cadar, Annie Robitaille, Alison Pattie, Ian J. Deary, Graciela Muñiz‐Terrera

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCohortDemographyMedicineDiseaseCohort studyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive declineGerontologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigated the heterogeneity of cognitive trajectories at the end of life by assigning individuals into groups according to their cognitive trajectories prior to death. Data were from the Lothian Birth Cohort of 1921. Growth mixture modelling was employed to identify groups of individuals with similar trajectories on the Mini-Mental State Examination in relation to time to death, accounting for childhood intelligence, education, hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Two distinct groups of individuals (classes) were identified: a smaller class (18%) of individuals whose MMSE scores dropped linearly with about 0.5 points per year, and a larger group (82%) with stable scores across the study period. Childhood intelligence was associated with an increased probability of belonging to the stable class of cognitive functioning prior to death. These findings support a protective role of childhood intelligence, a marker of cognitive reserve, against the loss of cognitive function prior to death.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→