Sensory impairments and cognitive impairment among Mexican American older adults: nativity differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the associations between sensory impairments and cognitive impairment (CI), and how these associations differ by nativity over 12 years of follow-up among Mexican American 75 years and older with moderate to high cognitive function at baseline. METHOD: Dual sensory impairment (DSI) included vision impairment (VI), difficulty in recognizing a friend at arm's length, across the room, or across the street); and hearing impairment (HI), inability to hear and understand a speech without seeing a person talk, in a quiet room. Participants were grouped into No VI-No HI, HI only, VI only, and Yes VI-Yes HI by nativity. CI was defined as scoring <21 on the Mini-Mental State Examination. RESULTS: US-born and foreign-born participantsin the Yes VI-Yes HI group and US-born in the VI only group had greater odds of CI over time than those without VI and without HI (OR = 2.64, 95%CL = 1.23-5.68, OR = 5.71, 95%CL = 2.78-11.73; and OR = 2.09, 95%CL = 1.28-3.43, respectively), after controlling for covariates. CONCLUSION: US-born and foreign-born Mexican American older adults with DSI were at high risk of developing CI over time. Addressing hearing and vision impairments may counteract CI over time.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".