Subjective cognitive decline and objective cognitive performance in older adults: A systematic review of longitudinal and cross‐sectional studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) have a higher risk of developing future cognitive decline than those without SCD. However, the association between SCD and objective cognitive performance remains unclear. This PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review aims to provide a qualitative assessment of the longitudinal and cross-sectional relationship between SCD and objective cognitive performance in different cognitive domains, in neuropsychologically healthy, community-dwelling older adults (average age of 55 or older). To identify pertinent studies, a comprehensive search was conducted from seven databases. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the quality of included studies. Inclusion criteria were met by 167 studies, which were full-text and published between 1 January 1982 and 16 May 2023 (inclusive) in the languages of English, French, or Spanish and presenting data on objective cognitive performance in older adults with SCD. Overall, we found that SCD was associated with poorer objective cognitive performance on measures of global cognition and memory longitudinally compared to non-SCD status, but this association was inconsistent in cross-sectional studies. This association became stronger with the use of continuous measures of SCD as opposed to dichotomous measures. Additionally, results highlight the known lack of consistency in SCD assessment among studies and comparatively small number of longitudinal studies in SCD research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".