MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312036839 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igac059.2254

COHORT SHIFTS IN POPULATION COGNITIVE AGING

2022· article· en· W4312036839 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick O’Keefe, Scott M. Hofer, Stacey Voll, Graciela Muñiz‐Terrera, Linda Wänström, Sean Clousten, Joeseph Rodgers

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortCognitionCohort effectPopulationPsychologyCognitive testCognitive skillCognitive agingCognitive declineCohort studyGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyDemographyDementiaMedicineDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Declines in cognitive functioning with increased age, on average and individually, is well documented and demonstrated to be related to genetics and a variety of life course risk factors, many of which are modifiable. Related to population cognitive aging is the phenomenon of the Flynn effect, the finding of increasing cognitive test scores across successive cohorts of young adults (e.g., Flynn 1987). This cohort effect has been repeatedly observed, in a wide variety of contexts, for over 30 years, with evidence that it has been occurring for at least a century. Our research looks at the interaction of the population cognitive aging and the Flynn effect. Using data from the English Longitudinal Survey of Ageing (ELSA) we show that, indeed, later born cohorts show significant (and meaningful) differences from earlier born cohorts. Using nonlinear Bayesian modeling we find that, on certain measures, later born cohorts have higher initial ability. This higher ability leads to a persistent advantage for later born cohorts, even as they experience (or will experience) cognitive decline. Additionally, we find that the advantage for later born cohorts is not present for every measure. Later born cohorts show an advantage for verbal fluency and episodic memory, however there is no cohort advantage on orientation scores. The lack of measurable differences on orientation is likely due to ceiling effects on orientation, which suggests that any substantial decline on that measure is indicative of pathology. We discuss the potential factors underlying both population cognitive aging and recent birth cohort trends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207