Everyday functioning among older adults with subjective cognitive decline: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) experience cognitive difficulties without objectively measurable cognitive impairments but which may affect their everyday functioning. However, everyday functioning in this population has not yet been characterized. We sought to describe the empirical literature on the everyday functioning of community-dwelling older adults with SCD, their recruitment methods, and the measurements used. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted for primary research articles including at least one measure of everyday functioning. Retrieved records were independently screened. Data were extracted then analyzed using descriptive statistics and summative content analysis. RESULTS: 6544 studies were screened; 21 studies were included. All were observational analytic studies. Most compared an SCD group with a group of healthy control (47.6%), mild cognitive impairment (71.5%), and/or dementia (33.3%). Subjective cognition was measured via interview (28.6%) or clinical question(s) (14.3%). Normal cognition was determined by a wide variety of cognitive tests. The most studied everyday functioning domain was instrumental activities of daily living (90.5%). Most studies used questionnaires (81.0%), and measured ability to do an everyday life task (76.2%). CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed on everyday functioning other than IADL, with greater focus on measures that consider an individual's real-life participation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".