EXPLORING STRATEGIES TO OPERATIONALIZE COGNITIVE RESERVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a coordinated analysis approach, we employed multilevel models to investigate the effect of education on the rate of decline measured with MMSE in preclinical stages of dementia in four longitudinal studies: Newcastle 85+ (3 waves), UK; Leiden 85+ (6 waves), Netherlands; 3 Cities (5 waves), France and OCTO-Twins (5 waves), Sweden.Higher education (>10 years) was associated with higher MMSE scores at the time of dementia diagnosis, compared to those with lower education in two of these studies (Newcastle 85+ & 3 Cities).Higher education had a moderating role on the rate of decline in the Newcastle 85+ (β= 1.25, SE=0.26, p <0.01) but a reverse effect in the Leiden study (β= -1.00, SE=0.43, p <0.05), where those with higher education had a stepper decline.This coordinated approach revealed no consistent protection for those with higher education, therefore this study did not fully support the cognitive reserve hypothesis.
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 | 0.036 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".