A survey on the cognitive function and its correlative factors in 49 centenarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the cognitive function and its correlative factors in centenarians. Methods Forty-nine subjects in Zhongxiang city were included in this mass screening.Questionnaire was utilized to collect basic data, including age, gender, ability of daily life, depression, life habits, body mass index, and history of chronic diseases on all the subjects.And the mini-mental state examination(MMSE)was adopted to evaluate cognitive function of old people.T test and chi-square test were used to compare the difference in effectiveness of multiple different factors on cognitive function, while binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effects of multiple different factors on cognitive function. Results The mean score of the ability of different dimensions of cognitive function was(7.10±2.71)in direction, (1.94±0.80)in memory, (0.61±1.07)in attention and computation, (1.92±0.86)in recall, and(4.73±2.14)in speech, respectively, with total score of cognitive function of(16.30±6.02)in forty-nine centenarians.Normal cognitive function was found in 25 cases, and decreased cognitive function was found in 24 cases.Single factor logistic analysis indicated that body mass index(t=-3.399, P=0.001)and self-rating depression scale(t=-5.731, P<0.001)were lower in patients with normal cognitive function than in patients with declined cognitive function.And smoking patients were associated with higher rates of normal cognitive function than the non-smoking patients(87.5% vs.43.9%, χ2=5.091, P=0.028), and patients with normal hearing were associated with higher rate of normal cognitive function than patients with hearing loss(70.3% vs.27.3%, χ2=9.01, P=0.030). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that depression index(β=-14.40, P=0.001)and body mass index(β=-0.424, P=0.015)were independent effective factors for cognitive function. Conclusions Improvement of the condition of depression and controlling the body mass index are hopeful for recovering or postponing their cognitive impairment in centenarians. Key words: Centenarians; Cognition; Correlative factors
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".