Dual cognitive and mobility impairments and future dementia ‐ Setting a research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual cognitive and mobility impairments are associated with an increased risk of dementia. Recent studies examining temporal trajectories of mobility and cognitive function in aging found that dual decline is associated with higher dementia risk than memory decline or gait decline only. Although initial data show that individuals with dual decline or impairment have excessive cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors, the causes of dual decline or what underlies dual decline with a high risk of dementia remain largely unknown. In December 2021, the National Institute on Aging Intramural and Extramural Programs jointly organized a workshop on Biology Underlying Moving and Thinking to explore the hypothesis that older persons with dual decline may develop dementia through a specific pathophysiological pathway. The working group discussed assessment methods for dual decline and possible mechanisms connecting dual decline with dementia risk and pinpointed the most critical questions to be addressed from a translational perspective.
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 | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".