Availability of Cognitive Resources in Early Life Predicts Transitions Between Cognitive States in Middle and Older Adults From Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives The existing literature highlights the importance of reading books in middle-to-older adulthood for cognitive functioning; very few studies, however, have examined the importance of childhood cognitive resources for cognitive outcomes later in life. Research Design and Methods Using data from 11 countries included in the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) data set (N = 32,783), multistate survival models (MSMs) were fit to examine the importance of access to reading material in childhood on transitions through cognitive status categories (no cognitive impairment and impaired cognitive functioning) and death. Additionally, using the transition probabilities estimated by the MSMs, we estimated the remaining years of life without cognitive impairment and total longevity. All models were fit individually in each country, as well as within the pooled SHARE sample. Results Adjusting for age, sex, education, and childhood socioeconomic status, the overall pooled estimate indicated that access to more books at age 10 was associated with a decreased risk of developing cognitive impairment (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.79, confidence interval: 0.76–0.82). Access to childhood books was not associated with risk of transitioning from normal cognitive functioning to death, or from cognitive impairment to death. Total longevity was similar between participants reporting high (+1 standard deviation [SD]) and low (−1 SD) number of books in the childhood home; however, individuals with more access to childhood books lived a greater proportion of this time without cognitive impairment. Discussion and Implications Findings suggest that access to cognitive resources in childhood is protective for cognitive aging processes in older adulthood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".