Determinants of subjective cognitive decline among older sexual minority Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Some lines of evidence suggest that older lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people may be at increased risk of cognitive impairment, stemming from minority stress experiences accumulated throughout the lifespan. Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is a perceived worsening in cognition and has been associated with dementia in the preclinical stage. Method We sought to examine variables associated with SCD among LGB participants in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a study of over 50,000 individuals. First follow‐up data were used and the mean age was 62.75 (SD=9.34). SCD was measured through the question “Do you feel like your memory is becoming worse?”. The analytic sample included only LGB participants in the study (n=925). Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of SCD. Result Results indicated that lesbian/bisexual women had 1.49 higher odds of reporting SCD (p=.006). Participants who were widowed (p=.041) and older (p=.011) were also at higher odds of reporting SCD. Conclusion The findings highlight factors that may increase risk of cognitive decline among individuals within aging sexual minority communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".