MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Memory and aging: What is the real impact of age?

2017· article· en· W6977505778 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarital statusCognitionMultilevel modelRegression analysisCognitive impairmentSample (material)Memory impairmentMemoria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong>Goals</strong>. Memory impairment is one of the types of cognitive impairment that most affects the elderly. Age is considered one of the major factors in memory impairment, including by the elderly themselves. Research has shown that there are other factors affecting memory of elderly persons. It remains, however, unclear what is the real impact of age in memory when controlling the influence of other variables. Thus, this study aims to analyze the impact of age on memory functioning of elderly persons and check if the potential impact remains when controlling the role of other variables (sex, education, profession, marital status, residential status, and clinical situation).<strong>Methods</strong>. The global sample comprised 1126 subjects (283 men and 843 women, 226 residents in the community and 900 institutionalized<strong> </strong>elderly) aged from 60 to 100 years. The assessment included items from the <em>Mini-Mental State Examination</em> (working memory), the <em>Montreal Cognitive Assessment</em> factor (verbal declarative memory), and <em>Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure </em>(visuospatial memory).<strong>Results</strong>. Overall, age, education, profession, marital, residential, and clinical condition have differently influenced memory, depending on the type of memory. The hierarchical regression analysis showed that age is a predictive factor in all types of memory. However, other predictors have emerged with higher regression coefficients compared to age, according to the type of memory (except in working memory).<strong>Conclusions</strong>. Age, education and profession influence memory, as well as factors that potentially stimulate cognitively and socially (like having a partner and living in the community). The results indicate the importance of intervening, especially among institutionalized elderly, older, unmarried, with low education, and manual profession.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1990.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.291 · 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