Effect of retirement on cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the longitudinal association between retirement and cognitive function, including global cognition and memory-related skills. This is a systematic review of longitudinal studies on the association between retirement and cognitive function, using Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases from inception to April 2020 and longitudinal studies on the association between retirement and cognitive function. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias of included studies. Effect size (ES) and 95% CI were calculated using Cohen’s d index. Meta-regressions were calculated on the basis of sample characteristics: percentage of women, years of follow-up and age at baseline. A total of 23 longitudinal studies were included in this systematic review. The pooled ES for the association of retirement with global cognition and memory-related skills was −0.01 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.00; I 2 : 0.0%) and −0.09 (95% CI −0.16 to 0.01; I 2 : 93%), respectively. Meta-regression analyses showed that length of follow-up, percentage of women in the sample and mean age at baseline did not influence the longitudinal association between retirement and adults’ memory-related skills. The results of this study indicate that retirement has no negative effects on adults’ global cognition and slightly adversely influences memory-related skills. Moreover, this association does not seem to be influenced by some demographic and study characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".