MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410952101 · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-06815-2

Repetitive negative thinking is associated with cognitive function decline in older adults: a cross-sectional study

2025· article· en· W4410952101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niansi Ye, Peng Ling, Bei Deng, Hui Hu, Yuncui Wang, Taoyun Zheng, Yating Ai, Xueting Liu, Yucan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCognitionCross-sectional studyAnxietyClinical psychologyPsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicinePsychiatryCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Psychological problems such as depression and anxiety increase the risk of cognitive impairment in older adults. But mechanisms on the effect of psychological disorder on cognitive function is inconclusive. Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) is a core symptom of a number of common psychological disorders and may be a modifiable process shared by many psychological risk factors that contribute to the development of cognitive impairment. RNT may increase the risk of cognitive impairment. However, there are fewer studies related to RNT and cognitive function, and there is a lack of epidemiological studies to explore the relationship between RNT and cognitive function. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 424 older adults aged 60 years or over was performed form May to November 2023 in hospital. To investigate the RNT level by using the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ), and investigate the cognitive function level by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA). Multivariable linear regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore the relationship between RNT and cognitive function. RESULTS: We categorized the total RNT scores into quartiles. The multivariable linear regression analysis showed that after adjusting for all covariates, the participants in the Q3 and Q4 groups exhibited lower cognition scores (Q3:β = -0.180, 95%CI -2.849~-0.860; Q4:β = -0.164, 95% -2.611~-0.666) compared to the Q1 group. The results of the subgroup analyses showed that individuals aged 60 ~ 79 years, junior high school and above are more prone to suffer from cognitive impairment with a high RNT score. CONCLUSION: The study reveals a negative association between RNT and cognitive function in community-dwelling older adults. However, multi-center and a longer time span cohort studies on the relationship between RNT and cognitive function should be carried out to further explore the mechanisms involved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207