MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021506739 · doi:10.37506/mlu.v20i1.670

The Study of the Correlation between Cognition Function and Quality of Sleep in the Elderly

2020· article· en· W3021506739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juyoung Park, Yang Yeong-Ae

Bibliographic record

VenueMedico-Legal Update · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCorrelationSleep (system call)Montreal Cognitive AssessmentSleep qualityGerontologyMental healthMedicinePopulationPearson product-moment correlation coefficientPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitive impairmentStatisticsEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Sleep function affects human health,Recently, studies on various variables affecting mental health management and cognitive function of elderly people are being actively conducted due to the increase of elderly population. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between cognitive function and quality of sleep in the elderly.Method/Statistical Analysis: The participation was 33 normal elders over 65-year-old. Cognition function was evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and quality of sleep was evaluated with sleep Scale A. The data were then analyzed for frequency and correlation by using statistical software (SPSS 21.0).Findings: The average age of the study subjects was 82.4 years. The average MoCA score was 17.1±3.8 and sleep scale A score was 29.6±8.9. The results of MoCA and sleep scale A showed a positive correlation(r = .417, p<.05).Improvements/Applications: The results of the study show that the lower the quality of sleep in the elderly, the lower the cognitive function. The results of this study will discuss whether sleep quality can be used to predict mental health in older adults.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedico-Legal UpdateSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207