Improved Pulmonary Function Reduces Cognitive Impairment Incidence in Female Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an intermediate stage between the cognitive changes of normal aging and early dementia. MCI is increasingly prevalent among the elderly. Some studies have shown that various pulmonary measures are associated with cognitive function. However, there has been limited investigation into this matter regarding cognitive impairment among community-dwelling individuals, particularly in relation to pulmonary function. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the relationship between pulmonary function and cognitive performance in female older adults with MCI. Methods: This study involved 21 female older adults aged 64 to 77 years, all diagnosed with MCI. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), with scores ranging from 18 to 24. Executive function was evaluated using the Trail Making Test Part B (TMT-B). Pulmonary function was measured through Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), and Maximum Voluntary Ventilation (MVV) using a computerized spirometer. Pearson’s correlation was used to analyze the relationship between cognitive and pulmonary function variables. A Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons (10 tests), setting the significance threshold at p < 0.005. Results: The analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between TMT-B scores and FVC (r = –0.602, p = 0.004). However, no statistically significant correlations were found between TMT-B scores and either FEV1 (r = –0.534, p = 0.029) or MVV (r = –0.359, p = 0.110) after Bonferroni correction. Similarly, no significant correlations were observed between MoCA scores and MVV (r = 0.315, p = 0.165), FVC (r = 0.441, p = 0.045), or FEV1 (r = 0.476, p = 0.029). Conclusion: The findings suggest an association between better pulmonary function and improved cognitive performance, particularly in female older adults with MCI. These findings highlight the importance of considering respiratory health as part of a comprehensive approach to cognitive aging and dementia prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".