MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200018854 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.3472

Cognitive Decline and Retirement: Findings From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2021· article· en· W4200018854 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Gosselin, Meghan Désilets-Jutras, Benjamin Boller

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongitudinal studyHealth and Retirement StudyCognitionPropensity score matchingPsychologyStroop effectLife expectancyGerontologyCognitive skillCognitive declineCohort studyDemographyMedicinePsychiatryDementiaEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since increasing life expectancy leads to a longer period of retirement, several studies have been investigating the possible impact of retirement on cognitive health. Several epidemiological studies with cross-sectional designs have reported a negative association between retirement and cognitive capacities. However, very few studies with longitudinal designs have confirmed the negative effect of retirement on cognitive functioning. The present study was conducted to investigate the impact of retirement on cognitive capacities among older Canadians. We used data from the Comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) to compare performance retirees and workers (N = 1442), 45 to 85 years of age at baseline. Memory and executive functioning were assessed using standardized assessment tools at baseline and at three-year follow up. Retirees and workers were matched for age, gender and education using the nearest neighbor propensity score method with a caliper of 0.02. Mixed ANOVA and post hoc analyses were conducted separately for the English- and French-speaking samples. Results for the English-speaking sample showed a significant decline on both the Stroop and the Mental Alternation Task for retirees compared to workers from baseline to follow-up. These results support previous cross-sectional studies that have demonstrated a negative effect of retirement on executive functioning. The absence of significant results in the French-speaking sample will be discussed in terms of sample size and professional occupation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207