Reserva cognitiva: un factor protector del deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN Introducción: Se considera a la reserva cognitiva como un factor dinámico que se desarrolla a partir de la exposición al entorno y una vida activa tanto mental como físicamente, es decir, la capacidad del cerebro de enfrentar los cambios que surgen por la edad o problemas neuropatológicos. Objetivo: Analizar si la reserva cognitiva y sus dimensiones (actividad académica, de intelecto y recreativa) tienen la capacidad de predecir el deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores de una fraternidad de adultos mayores de Quillabamba-Perú. Metodología: Estudio predictivo, de corte transversal. Se evaluó a 117 adultos mayores de 60 años, de ambos sexos (70,9% mujeres y 29,1% varones). Se utilizó el Cuestionario de Reserva Cognitiva (CRC) y el Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-B) como instrumentos de medición. Resultados: La reserva cognitiva y sus dimensiones poseen una alta carga predictiva estandarizada y significativa (β=0.710), explicando hasta un 50,4% del comportamiento del deterioro cognitivo. Conclusión: La reserva cognitiva es un factor predictor relevante del deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it