The Association Between Multilingualism and Executive Function in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging: Results from the Baseline Comprehensive Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Identifying factors that protect against cognitive impairment is key to healthy aging. Cognitive stimulation through multilingualism may be protective against cognitive impairment, such as low executive function. Evidence of a multilingual advantage on executive function tasks is mixed, and very few studies have examined the role of language similarity on cognition. \nObjectives: To examine the association of: 1) the number and 2) the similarity of spoken languages with executive function in Canadians aged 45–85 years. \n \nMethods: Baseline cross-sectional data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging’s Comprehensive cohort were used for analyses of the number (n=22,249) and similarity (n=20,440) of languages. Language similarity was examined in bilinguals, where similar bilingualism referred to individuals whose two spoken languages were within the same Indo-European language family subgroup. Low executive function was derived from five executive function tests, where raw scores were converted to z-scores, summed, and then dichotomized based on a cut-point of ≥1.5 SD below the mean of the overall score in a weighted cognitively healthy subsample. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for sociodemographic, general health, health behaviours/lifestyle, and cognitively stimulating covariates. The fully adjusted model was stratified by participation in cognitive leisure activities. \n \nResults: The number of languages spoken was significantly associated with executive function in a dose-response manner: compared to those who spoke one language, individuals who spoke up to, and including, four languages had lower odds of low executive function. The association between language similarity and low executive function was not significant. When stratified by cognitive leisure activities, the same conclusions held in those who participated in these cognitive activities infrequently, but not every day or several time a week. \n \nConclusion: The number of languages spoken is protective against low executive function, with peak protection occurring at four languages, but the similarity of spoken languages does not provide any protective effect. Therefore, an individuals may benefit from learning any additional Indo-European language. Moreover, protection against low executive function can be achieved through different combinations of cognitively stimulating activities, but language learning would be particularly beneficial for persons who engage infrequently in traditional cognitive activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".