Cognitive Performance in Older Adults With Subjective Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) refers to a perceived decline in cognitive function in the absence of neuropsychological deficits. Older adults with SCD are at increased of subsequent development of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. We had 224 adults aged 65+ complete questionnaires assessing their subjective appraisal of their cognitive function, including questions about word-finding difficulty, memory, and attention/concentration. Participants also completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). All participants exhibited cognitive performance that was within normal limits for age and education. In total, 29.5% of participants reported word-finding difficulties, 16.5% reported difficulties with remembering things, and 8.5% reported difficulties with attention/concentration. We found that (1) self-reported word-finding difficulties were associated with lower performance on delayed word recall, and (2) self-reported difficulties in concentration/attention or memory were associated with lower performance on the abstraction subtask in the MoCA. No other MoCA subtasks were associated with self-reported cognitive function. A subset of the participants (n=69) also completed a battery of tasks assessing semantic function, including picture naming, associative matching tasks, identification of semantic features, and semantic questions. Again, self-reported word-finding difficulty predicted lower performance on semantic tasks. These results suggest that older adults may be aware of changes in their cognitive performance prior to objective neuropsychological impairment. Moreover, their awareness appears to be domain-specific: self-reported language difficulty is associated with lower performance on language-based tasks, while self-reported difficulty in memory, attention, or concentration is associated with lower performance on an abstraction task.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".