Associations between life satisfaction and hope with cognitive function and decline over 13 years: findings from the Whitehall II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence indicates an association between wellbeing (e.g., purpose in life) and cognition over time. However, wellbeing is a multifaceted construct, and most research has focused on purpose in life and positive affect, with less research on other aspects of wellbeing. The aim of this study was to test associations between life satisfaction (LS) and hope with cognitive function and decline. Data were used from Whitehall II, a longitudinal cohort study of people employed by the British Civil Service. Measures of LS and hope were available at Wave 7, and cognitive function (phonemic/semantic verbal fluency, memory and inductive reasoning) at Waves 7, 9, 11, and 12. Linear mixed models were fitted to test associations between LS and hope with cognitive function and decline over 13 years. LS was positively associated with baseline cognitive function (overall cognition, verbal fluency, memory, and inductive reasoning) cross-sectionally but not with decline over time. Hope was positively associated with baseline overall cognition, phonemic fluency and inductive reasoning (but not semantic fluency or memory). Hope was associated with slower decline in inductive reasoning over 13 years. Findings contribute to better understanding of the temporal relationship between wellbeing and cognitive function from middle to older age. People with higher hope show lower baseline cognition and slower decline in inductive reasoning. People with lower LS show lower initial cognitive function and this difference is maintained over time. Although decline is not steeper for those with lower LS, they may reach the threshold for dementia earlier than those with higher LS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".