Social support, neurocognition, and posttraumatic stress disorder: Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Most research investigating neurocognitive changes in participants with PTSD has focused on young adults. Numerous studies have recognized the crucial role of social support in diminishing the likelihood of developing PTSD. The current study evaluates the cognitive performance of middle-aged and older adults with symptoms of PTSD, and examines if perceived social support can act as a cognitive reserve factor. METHOD: The study was conducted using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, a nationwide study on health and aging. The current study included 1,096 participants in the PTSD group and 22,158 participants in the comparison group, all between the ages of 45 and 85. Participants completed the MOS (Medical Outcomes Study) Social Support Survey as well as neuropsychological tests in the domains of executive functioning, declarative memory, and prospective memory. RESULTS: The PTSD group had worse performance in the domains of executive functioning and prospective memory than the comparison group. Furthermore, when examining global cognitive impairments (impairment was defined as scoring 1.5 or more standard deviations below age and education adjusted comparison group), the PTSD group demonstrated greater impairment rates than the comparison group on two or more tests. Moderation analyses revealed that greater social support was associated with better executive functioning for the comparison group, although this was not found to be true for the PTSD group. CONCLUSION: The PTSD group experienced greater cognitive deficits compared to the comparison group. Higher levels of perceived social support were associated with better performance on neurocognitive measures for the comparison group. However, social support did not appear to moderate this relationship for the PTSD group.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".