Person-Based Similarity Index for Cognition and Its Neural Correlates in Late Adulthood: Implications for Cognitive Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy aging is typically associated with some level of cognitive decline, but there is substantial variation in such decline among older adults. The mechanisms behind such heterogeneity remain unclear but some have suggested a role for cognitive reserve. In this work, we propose the "person-based similarity index" for cognition (PBSI-Cog) as a proxy for cognitive reserve in older adults, and use the metric to quantify similarity between the cognitive profiles of healthy older and younger participants. In the current study, we computed this metric in 237 healthy older adults (55-88 years) using a reference group of 156 younger adults (18-39 years) taken from the Cambridge Center for Ageing and Neuroscience dataset. Our key findings revealed that PBSI-Cog scores in older adults were: 1) negatively associated with age (rho = -0.25, P = 10-4) and positively associated with higher education (t = 2.4, P = 0.02), 2) largely explained by fluid intelligence and executive function, and 3) predicted more by functional connectivity between lower- and higher-order resting-state networks than brain structural morphometry or education. Particularly, we found that higher segregation between the sensorimotor and executive networks predicted higher PBSI-Cog scores. Our results support the notion that brain network functional organization may underly variability in cognitive reserve in late adulthood.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".