Changes in Activity Participation Among Older Adults With Subjective Cognitive Decline or Objective Cognitive Deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in daily activities is crucial for healthy aging. There is limited research on participation of older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), defined as the experience of cognitive deficits with no evidence of objective cognitive deficits. Therefore, this study examined perceived changes in participation in this population, and compared it to perceived changes reported by individuals with objective cognitive deficits. The study aimed to: (1) examine the reported changes in activity participation of older with SCD; (2) investigate differences in the reported changes in participation between individuals with SCD and those with mild or severe objective cognitive deficits; (3) examine the relationship between activity participation, subjective memory and objective cognitive status; and (4) explore whether subjective memory explains additional variance in activity participation after accounting for age and objective cognitive deficits. Participants were 115 older adults (60+), divided into three groups based on their Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores: (1) SCD (MoCA≥26; n=66); (2) mild objective cognitive deficits (MoCA=20-25; n=34); and (3) severe objective cognitive deficits (MoCA≤19; n=15). The Activity Card Sort was used to measure participation in instrumental activities of daily living, social and leisure activities. The Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire – Ability subscale was used to assess subjective memory. We found that individuals with SCD, mild cognitive deficits and severe cognitive deficits reported participation withdrawal to a level of 80%, 70% and 58% of their past participation, respectively. A significant between group difference was found on participation (χ2(2)=16.44, p<.01), with the SCD group reporting higher participation than the other two groups. Participation significantly correlated with both cognitive status (r=.40, p<.01) and subjective memory (r=.45, p<.05). A regression analysis revealed that subjective memory contributed significantly to the explained variance in participation, beyond that accounted for by objective cognitive deficits and age. Our findings demonstrate the important role of subjective memory problems in activity participation of older adults, even in the absence of objective cognitive deficits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".