Positive impact of cognitive reserve on the dynamics of selected cognitive functions in a 3-month follow-up of adult Poles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3383-0353 Introduction: David Snowden’s 25-year longitudinal Nun Study has contributed to the ongoing interest in the relationship between cognitive reserve and cognitive performance in adults. The term “cognitive reserve” refers to the capital of knowledge and skills. Greater cognitive reserve accounts for good baseline cognitive status of adults and may translate into successful aging. Therefore, research was undertaken to assess the role of cognitive reserve and age in shaping the results of tests assessing cognitive functions and self-report methods. Methods: The study was conducted among adult Poles (N = 80) and involved two measurements (at baseline and after 3 months). The cognitive reserve index included self-report data on past and present involvement in various areas of life, years of occupational activity, level of formal education and occupational status. Each of these categories was scored. Cognitive functions were assessed twice using verbal fluency tests, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised (WAIS-R) subtests, the Zoo Map subtest, the Trail Making Test (TMT), self-report tools such as the Dysexecutive Questionnaire – Self (DEX-S) and the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ), as well as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). Results: Age was negatively correlated with test results, while greater cognitive reserve contributed to better outcomes, which was observed both at baseline and follow-up. The same assessments performed separately for the group of younger (≤55 years of age) and older (≥56 years) adults revealed the negative effect of age in the older group, with less pronounced positive effect of cognitive reserve. Discussion: The results correspond to previous findings. Attention, cognitive flexibility, working memory and planning abilities deteriorate with age. High levels of cognitive reserve account for improvement of these functions both at baseline and at 3 months. However, age, the negative role of which is particularly evident in individuals aged ≥56 years, is the strongest determinant of task performance. Conclusions: The relationship between deteriorated cognitive functions and the protective role of cognitive reserve may vary at different stages of adulthood. Adverse effects of age on cognitive abilities are more pronounced, while the protective effects of cognitive reserve cease in individuals aged ≥56 years. This may indicate that in the presence of other unfavourable factors, such as multimorbidity, cognitive reserve has no significant impact on the ageing trajectory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".