Does social connection mediate the association between neuroticism and cognition? Cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study tested the association between neuroticism and six cognitive measures, and examined the potential mediating roles of social connection (social isolation and loneliness) among middle-aged and older adults.Methods This cross-sectional study was a secondary analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) Comprehensive Cohort, a sample of Canadians aged 45–85 years at baseline. Respondents with data collected at the first follow-up, between 2015 and 2018, were included (n = 27,765). Structural equation modelling was used to assess the association between neuroticism and six cognitive measures (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test immediate recall and delayed recall, Animal Fluency Test, Mental Alternation Test, Controlled Oral Word Association Test and Stroop Test interference ratio), with direct and indirect effects (through social isolation and loneliness). All analyses were stratified by sex, including females (n = 14,133) and males (n = 13,632).Results In unadjusted models, there was evidence of associations between neuroticism and all cognitive measures, except the Stroop Test interference ratio, suggesting higher neuroticism was associated with lower scores on memory and executive function tests. In the models of these other five outcomes, there was consistent evidence of indirect effects (through social isolation and loneliness) and, in some cases, direct effects. The results are discussed in context with limitations, including the use of cross-sectional design and alternative hypotheses to explain the association between personality and cognition.Conclusion Among middle-aged and older adults, for both males and females, the findings suggest that the association between neuroticism and cognitive outcomes may be mediated by aspects of social connection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".