Characteristics of discrimination and ambulatory cognitive performance among older Black and White adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived discrimination has been linked with neurocognitive disparities between Black and White adults. Yet, cognitive assessments outside of laboratory settings and the relevance of perceived reasons for discrimination require additional attention. The present work addressed associations between discrimination and ambulatory cognitive performance (i.e., spatial working memory, short-term memory binding, processing speed) in ecological settings among older Black and White adults enrolled in the Einstein Aging Study. Consistent with past laboratory-based research, Black adults exhibited worse ambulatory cognitive performance and reported more frequent discrimination compared to White adults. Racially stratified analyses examined characteristics (i.e., number and type) of the perceived reasons for discrimination as moderators in relation to discrimination frequency and cognition. For Black adults who endorsed zero or one reason for discrimination compared to those who endorsed multiple reasons, discrimination frequency was associated with worse spatial working memory. Additionally, among Black participants who did not attribute discrimination to their race compared to those who endorsed racial discrimination, discrimination frequency related to worse spatial working memory. For White adults, cognitive performance was largely unrelated to discrimination frequency and characteristics. Findings highlight the value of examining discrimination and cognition in daily life, and the importance of assessing characteristics of discriminatory experiences within racial groups.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".