Correlates of Memory and Executive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults in the CLSA: A Minority Stress Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Maintaining cognitive function is an important component of healthy aging. There is increasing recognition that extraneous factors expedite the typical cognitive aging process. Risk factors for cognitive decline cluster around inequalities and disproportionally affect minority and vulnerable groups. Taking a minority stress approach, we examined the relationship between proxy measures of minority stress and cognitive health in a large sample of Canadians aged 45-85 years. METHODS: Data were drawn from the baseline of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, a prospective cohort study. Memory (n = 36,849) and executive function (n = 36,266) were assessed using standardized assessment tools. We ran multiple linear regression models with memory and executive function as the outcomes. Explanatory variables included known correlates of cognitive health (i.e., demographic, health, and cognitive reserve) and proxy measures of minority stress (i.e., sexual orientation, race, and perceived social standing). RESULTS: Results were consistent with existing evidence showing that demographic and health variables were associated with cognitive performance. Modifiable health variables, walking, and fruit/vegetable consumption were associated with better cognitive performance, as were cognitive reserve and social support measures. Within the models, racial minority status was consistently associated with lower cognitive performance. As one's perceived social standing within their own community increased, so too did cognitive function. DISCUSSION: These findings identify factors that may put people at risk for cognitive decline. There is a need to support the cognitive health of racialized Canadians and members of other disadvantaged groups, while promoting health equity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".