Vascular Brain Lesions, Cognitive Reserve, and Their Association with Cognitive Profile in Persons with Early-Stage Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive reserve may protect against the effects of brain pathology, but few studies have looked at whether cognitive reserve modifies the adverse effects of vascular brain pathology. Objective: We determined if cognitive reserve attenuates the associations of vascular brain lesions with worse cognition in persons with subjective concerns or mild impairment. Methods: We analyzed 200 participants aged 50-90 years from the Comprehensive Assessment of Neurodegeneration and Dementia (COMPASS-ND) study. Cognition was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and a neuropsychological test battery. High vascular lesion burden was defined as two or more supratentorial infarcts or beginning confluent or confluent white matter hyperintensity. Cognitive reserve proxies included education, occupational attainment, marital status, social activities, physical activity, household income, and multilingualism. Results: Mean age was 72.8 years and 48% were female; 73.5% had mild cognitive impairment and 26.5% had subjective concerns. Professional/managerial occupations, annual household income≥$60,000 per year, not being married/common law, and high physical activity were independently associated with higher cognition. Higher vascular lesion burden was associated with lower executive function, but the association was not modified by cognitive reserve. Conclusion: Markers of cognitive reserve are associated with higher cognition. Vascular lesion burden is associated with lower executive function. However, cognitive reserve does not mitigate the effects of vascular lesion burden on executive function. Public health efforts should focus on preventing vascular brain injury as well as promoting lifestyle factors related to cognitive reserve, as cognitive reserve alone may not mitigate the effects of vascular brain injury.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".