MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061305919

Race, Meaning and Purpose in Life, and Markers of Brain Health for Alzheimer’s Disease

2023· other· en· W7061305919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueD-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)CognitionMeaning (existential)Race (biology)White (mutation)Functional magnetic resonance imagingWhite matterDiseaseNegroidRace and health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Meaning and purpose in life (M&P) represents goal direction and meaning for individuals. Higher M&P is related to better global cognition. However, papers included either predominantly White or Black samples. We aimed to test the association of M&P with brain health markers in a roughly equal Black and White sample to assess racial differences. We hypothesized that higher M&P scores would be associated with better markers of brain health and that the association would be stronger among Black compared to White individuals. Methods: 206 adults (50-89 years) were included. M&P was measured by the National Institutes of Health Toolbox. Brain health was characterized as general cognition by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, cortical thickness from magnetic resonance imaging, and beta-amyloid (Aβ) burden from positron emission tomography scans with Pittsburgh compound B. Race was self-reported as either White or Black/African American. The association of M&P with brain outcomes was assessed by linear regression adjusted for years of education, sex, age, and separately, depressive symptoms. Effect modification by race was assessed with inclusion of a race*M&P interaction term and race-stratified models when the interaction p<0.10. Results: While there was no association between M&P and two markers of brain health– global Aβ and cortical thickness (both p>0.10)– among cognitively normal participants, there was an association between higher M&P scores and better global cognition (β=0.090, p=0.022). Further, in the whole sample, the results varied by race (interaction p=0.073), with higher M&P scores associated with better global cognition for Black (β=0.11, p=0.011), but not White participants (β=0.0081, p=0.83). There was no effect modification for amyloid or cortical thickness (p’s for interaction all>0.10). Conclusion: Greater M&P is associated with better global cognition in Black older adults. Studies should assess whether other brain health markers are related to M&P and if and how promoting M&P may improve brain health outcomes and enhance brain health equity, thus providing a significant public health impact.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueD-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207