Subjective memory impairment and associated health factors in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Subjective memory impairment (SMI) is predictive for dementia, cognitive decline and mortality. This nationwide population-based study examines the prevalence of SMI among older adults and its associations with demographics and age-related health indicators. Methods Gesundheit 65+ is a representative health survey of people aged 65 years and older in Germany (06/2021-04/2023). A total of 3,235 participants (44.6% women, mean age 78.1 years) provided self-reported information on SMI, defined as memory worsening with associated worries. Weighted prevalences of SMI overall and stratified by demographic and health variables were calculated, and regression analysis was conducted. Results In total, 27.3% reported SMI with no differences according to sex or education level based on the Comparative Analyses of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations classification. SMI was more frequently reported by participants aged 80+, groups with poorer self-rated health, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, depressive symptoms, severe sensory and mobility limitations, falls, and severe limitations in basic and instrumental activities of daily living. In multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, education, poorer self-rated health (odd ratio = 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.10), multimorbidity (2.11, 1.57-2.84), depressive symptoms (1.59, 1.11-2.28), severe hearing limitations (2.28, 1.67-3.10) and falls (1.72, 1.18-2.50) were independently associated with SMI, whereas all other variables were not. Discussion About a quarter of older people in Germany is experiencing SMI. SMI is associated with a variety of health problems, in particular poorer self-rated health, multimorbidity, depressive symptoms, hearing limitations and falls. In general practice, patients who are worrying about memory decline should be examined and advised on the extent to which they need support or complex health intervention to improve or stabilize their health as much as possible. Key messages • Older adults frequently report and worry about memory worsening, which adds to other health problems. • Providing interventions appears important to prevent further decline of cognition and health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".