Negative and Positive Psychosocial Factors in Relation to Cognitive Health in Older African Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives Identifying potential intervention strategies to reduce cognitive decline, particularly among older African Americans at high risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, is critical. This study aimed to investigate whether depressive symptoms, purpose in life, and their interrelations are associated with cognitive decline in older African Americans. Research Design and Methods We included older African Americans from the Minority Aging Research Study (n = 748) and Rush Memory and Aging Project (n = 109), without dementia at baseline. We assessed associations of depressive symptoms, purpose in life, and their interrelations, with baseline levels and change in global cognition using linear mixed-effects models. Results At baseline, each unit increment in depressive symptoms was related to worse initial global cognition (mean difference = −0.03 standard unit; p = .003), while higher purpose in life was related to better cognition (mean difference = 0.12; p = .002). Further, participants with ≥1 depressive symptom who had a purpose in life score above the median appeared to have better global cognition (mean difference = 0.10; p = .01), compared to those with depressive symptoms but lower levels of purpose in life. However, we did not find relations of depressive symptoms or purpose in life with rates of cognitive decline over time, likely due to the modest follow-up. Discussion and Implications In older African Americans, we found that lower depressive symptoms and greater purpose in life were independently related to higher initial levels of global cognition, but not cognitive decline. Preliminary findings of higher global cognition in individuals with depressive symptoms but greater purpose in life merit further investigation if purpose may eventually be considered as an intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".