WORK-RELATED COGNITIVE RESERVE PREDICTS COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING AND DEPRESSION IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, there has been a rapid increase in people aged over 65 – in Latvia, it constitutes 34% of the population. It has been well established that depression is one of the psychiatric diseases often comorbid to dementia, therefore it is important to identify life-style related factors that could contribute not only to the delay of dementia symptoms but also decrease the possibility of depression in older adults. Thus the study aimed to investigate the relationship between work-related cognitive reserve, depression and overall cognitive functioning in older adults with no diagnosis of dementia or depression.84 older adults aged from 65 – 92 (Mdn = 77, SD = 6.17, 76% women) with no diagnosis of dementia or depression participated in the study. To assess work-related cognitive reserve, Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire (Nucci, Mapelli, & Mondini, 2012) was used, while for depression measures the 15- item Geriatric Depression Scale (Sheikh & Yesavage, 1986) was used. Overall cognitive functioning was measured using The Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (Nasreddine et al., 2015).To identify the relationship between the three variables, Spearman correlation coefficient was used. All variables correlated significantly. Both, work-related cognitive reserve and depression, predicted cognitive functioning. These results offer an insight into the possible positive contribution of the cognitive reserve not only to cognitive functioning, but also psychological well-being later in life. More studies in larger samples should be conducted to confirm the observation from this study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".