Association of mental demands in the workplace with cognitive function in older adults at increased risk for dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Growing evidence suggests a protective effect of high mental demands at work on cognitive function in later life. However, evidence on corresponding associations in older adults at increased risk for dementia is currently lacking. This study investigates the association between mental demands at work and cognitive functioning in the population of the AgeWell.de-trial. METHODS: Cross-sectional investigation of the association between global cognitive functioning (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and mental demands at work in older individuals at increased risk for dementia (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE)score ≥ 9; n = 941, age: 60-77 years). Occupational information was matched to Occupational Information Network (O*NET)-descriptors. Associations between cognitive function and O*NET-indices executive, verbal and novelty were investigated using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Higher values of index verbal (b = .69, p = .002) were associated with better cognitive function when adjusting for covariates. No association was observed for indices executive (b = .37, p = .062) and novelty (b = .45, p = .119). Higher education, younger age, and employment were linked to better cognitive function, while preexisting medical conditions did not change the associations. Higher levels of depressive symptomatology were associated with worse cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of verbal demands at work were associated with better cognitive function for older adults with increased dementia risk. This suggests an advantage for older persons in jobs with high mental demands even after retirement and despite prevalent risk factors. Longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm these results and evaluate the potential of workplaces to prevent cognitive decline through increased mental demands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".