Conceptualizing healthy cognitive aging: the role of time and variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in healthy cognitive aging (HCA) has increased substantially over the past decade. Researchers are interested in exploring how health can be promoted and cognitive decline mitigated when pathology is not present. Identifying the necessary strategies is crucial as the gradual accumulation of small declines can lead to negative effects on quality of life over time. However, the conceptualization of HCA is not agreed upon. In fact, authors often turn to the use of traditional pathology screeners in the context of HCA because of their clear threshold results and their wide use in the different fields. This leads to the assumption that individuals are either cognitively unhealthy and therefore may have some form of dementia or are dementia-free and cognitively healthy. We believe that this view is an overly simplistic approach to the understanding of the aging process. In this work, we explore how HCA has been defined and conceptualized within the different fields. We further discuss how time and variability are key concepts that are often missing when studying HCA and propose a definition that aims to unify the findings from the multidisciplinary research that studies HCA and simplify the translation of knowledge. Incorporating these two novel dimensions to the study of HCA has already been proposed methodologically but has yet been discussed at the conceptual level. We believe that the proposed new approach will allow the identification of individual factors that cause changes in cognitive health and will help build new cognitive health strategies and mitigate further declines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".