The association between religious participation and memory among middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Mounting evidence suggests religion plays an important role in maintaining cognition. No prior systematic review has focused on the specific association between religion and the memory domain of cognition in middle-aged and older adults. We carried out a systematic review to explore this association in depth. METHODS: We searched the PsycINFO, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify articles assessing any means of measuring religion as the exposure and memory as the outcome. Articles had to report on studies with comparison groups to be eligible for inclusion in the review. We followed the PRISMA checklist to conduct the review (PROSPERO registration # CRD42022330389). RESULTS: Nine out of the 1648 citations retrieved in the literature search were included in the review. The majority of included articles had a moderate risk of bias. Most results showed positive associations between religion and memory. DISCUSSION: Despite consistency in the direction of association between religion and memory, the literature contained some important research gaps: the studies were cross-sectional; a lack of information existed regarding whether different faiths, sex/gender and depression affected the association; and underpowered studies prevented us from drawing firm conclusions about the direction or magnitude of effect. Longitudinal studies avoiding these issues are needed in this field.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".