ROLE OF GAIT SPEED, OLFACTION, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Slowing of gait speed, loss of smell and increased depression, anxiety and stress have been associated with lower cognitive performance among older adults. The Minnesota Memory Project is a longitudinal study of community-dwelling adults 55 and older that investigates lifestyle factors associated with cognitive aging. Annual assessments include the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Alberta Smell Test (AST), gait speed test (GST) and self-report inventories, including the Cognitive Change Checklist (3CL) and measures of social support, resilience, stress, anxiety, and depression. Significant associations were identified between AST and gait scores versus MoCA. Both scores differed significantly between cognitively impaired (MoCA < 26) versus cognitively intact (MoCA ≥26) participants. On average, impaired participant AST scores were significantly lower than intact participants (6.5 ± 3.9 SD, 8.7 ± 3.6 SD) and gait scores were significantly slower (4.0 ± 1.0 SD, 3.65 ± 0.8). A greater number of self-reported cognitive complaints was associated with lower MoCA scores at baseline (p< 0.0001). Participants reporting higher resilience and social support reported significantly fewer cognitive complaints (p< 0.0001), while higher stress, anxiety and depression were associated with more cognitive complaints (all p< 0.0001). Significant effects of olfaction, gait and cognitive complaints on future cognitive decline were also identified. A one-unit increase in AST score was associated with an 11% decrease in the hazard of cognitive impairment within 5 years. A one-unit increase in the GST score was associated with a 60% increase. Screening that includes gait speed, olfaction and subjective cognitive complaints could identify those at risk for future cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".