The potential protective benefit of personality on subjective cognitive decline related worry: Results from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), a self‐reported decline in cognition, may be a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. Recently, SCD‐related worry has been implicated in predicting the progression from SCD to further cognitive decline. Certain personality traits have been linked to cognitive health (i.e., conscientiousness, emotional‐stability, and openness to experience), but little is known about the association between personality traits and worry related to perceived cognitive decline. Method Analyzing data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a large national study of participants aged 45‐85 at baseline, we sought to identify prospective psychosocial correlates of SCD‐related worry. At baseline, known correlates of cognition (e.g., depression) were measured, as well as the primary predictor of interest, personality traits, which were measured using the Ten‐Item Personality Inventory (TIPI). SCD and SCD‐related worry were measured three years later. Participants who positively endorsed SCD at follow‐up were asked a single‐item assessing their worry about their self‐reported memory decline. Response options ranged from disagree to agree. Multiple imputation using chained equations (MICE) was conducted to account for missing data. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds of reporting greater SCD‐related worry (n = 27,745). Result Many psychosocial measures were associated with greater SCD‐related worry, for example, being a woman (OR = 1.35, CI: 1.25‐1.45), being younger (OR = 0.99, CI: 0.97‐0.99), and elevated depression symptoms (OR = 1.44, CI: 1.32‐1.58). With respect to personality traits, higher levels of certain traits were associated with reduced odds of SCD‐related worry: extraversion (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.95‐0.98), conscientiousness (OR = 0.95, CI: 0.92‐0.97), and emotional stability (OR = 0.86, CI: 0.84‐0.88). Openness to experience (OR = 1.01, CI: 0.99‐1.03), and agreeableness (OR = 1.00, CI: 0.97‐1.03), were not associated with SCD‐related worry. Conclusion Higher levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability were associated with higher worry regarding perceived decline in cognitive functioning. This information may help identify individuals at a greater risk of future cognitive impairment and dementia.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".