Do social factors mediate or moderate the sensory-cognitive associations in older adults in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory and cognitive function both tend to decline with increasing age. Sensory impairments are risk factors for age-related cognitive decline and dementia. One hypothesis about sensory-cognitive associations is that sensory loss results in social isolation which, in turn, is a risk factor for cognitive decline. We tested whether social factors are associated with cognitive and sensory function, and whether sensory-cognitive associations are mediated or moderated by social factors. We used cross-sectional data from 30,029 participants in the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging, aged 45-85 years, who had no reported cognitive impairment or diagnosis of dementia. We found strong independent associations of self-reported social variables with hearing (pure-tone audiometry), vision (pinhole-corrected visual acuity), and executive function and weaker associations with memory. The moderating and mediating effects of social variables on sensory-cognitive associations were weak and mostly non-significant, but social factors could be slightly more important for females and older people. Partial retirement (relative to full retirement or not being retired) may have protective effects on cognition in the presence of hearing loss. These findings confirm the association between social factors and sensory and cognitive measures. However, support is weak for the hypothesis that social factors shape sensory-cognitive associations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".