Associations of sensory impairments with cognition vary by race in older US adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Sensory impairments are associated with increased dementia risk in older adults, but whether such associations vary by race is unknown. Method We studied 2,058 participants from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) aged 57 to 85 without cognitive impairment at the time of recruitment. 8% identified as Hispanic, 13% as non‐Hispanic Black, and 76% as non‐Hispanic White. Sensory function in the 5 senses (vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch) was measured by visual acuity, interviewer‐rated hearing, a five‐item smell identification test, a four‐item taste identification test, and touch by single point and 2‐point discrimination. Previously published cut‐points defined poor, fair, and good levels of function. Cognition was measured with a modified version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in the same subjects 10 years later. Linear regression models with interaction terms evaluated whether the association between sensory impairments and cognition differed by race/Ethnicity, adjusting for age, sex, and education. Result 64.7% of individuals had poor sensory function (≥1 impairment). Hispanic (n = 228) and non‐Hispanic Black (n = 237) older adults were more likely to have ≥1 sensory impairments and to have lower cognition scores compared to non‐Hispanic Whites (n = 1,593). In adjusted models including all participants, fair interviewer‐rated hearing (‐0.68 points, CI:‐1.09,‐0.27), fair smell (‐0.77 points, CI:‐1.14,‐0.41), fair taste (‐0.37 points, CI:‐0.73, ‐0.01), and having multiple sensory impairments (‐0.73 points, CI:‐1.27, ‐0.19) were associated with lower cognition compared to good sensory function/ no impairments. For smell, taste, and touch there were differences by race. The estimated effect of fair smell on subsequent lower cognition was stronger in non‐Hispanic Blacks compared to Whites (‐0.99 points, CI: ‐1.90,‐0.09, p for interaction = 0.03). The estimated effect of poor taste on worse cognition was stronger in non‐Hispanic Whites compared to Hispanics (‐1.42 points, CI: ‐2.62,‐0.22, p for interaction = 0.02). There was a significant association between poor touch and lower cognition in Hispanics but not for other racial groups (‐2.03 points, CI: ‐3.81, ‐0.25, p = 0.03). Conclusion We found important racial differences in how sensory dysfunction predicts future cognition. Sensory impairments are often modifiable; further insight on these differences may help stimulate efforts to reduce disparities in dementia burden.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".