The Role of Modifiable Risk Factors in Forming Cognitive Reserve in Older Adults With Varying Levels of Cognitive Impairment and Neurodegeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engagement in social, physical, and cognitive activities is beneficial for maintaining cognitive health in later life by providing cognitive reserves against cognitive and neurodegenerative decline. OBJECTIVE: Insight is needed to understand how different activities combine to provide cognitive protection before and after the beginning of decline. METHODS: The current work used a cross-sectional data set of older adults who were cognitively unimpaired (CU), live with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), live with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or live with Alzheimer's disease. Beneficial behaviors included easily modifiable risk factors for dementia in late life: engagement in social, creative, and physical activities. The study explored individual and combined effects on the relationships between hippocampal volume and memory. FINDINGS: Greater engagement in beneficial behaviors minimized the neural-cognitive relationship in the SCI group. Once disease progression continued to MCI, risk factors no longer modified the brain-cognition relationship. DISCUSSION: Understanding how individual behaviors combine provides guidance when developing intervention trials or public policy procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".