Health‐Related Behaviours in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians with Robust Cognitive Longevity: Progress from the SuperAging Research Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SuperAgers-individuals age 80+ with episodic memory performance at least as good as those 20-30 years younger-provide a unique perspective on cognitive resilience and resistance in aging. The SuperAging Research Initiative (SRI), spearheaded by The University of Chicago and involving multiple academic partners, investigates factors underpinning robust cognitive aging. One key SRI project leverages a fully remote data collection paradigm to 1) discern activity patterns that characterize SuperAgers and 2) explore the 'complexity hypothesis in aging'-whether dynamic physiological responsiveness is a hallmark of exceptional cognitive aging. METHOD: In a fully remote data collection protocol, participants don wearable sensors, including an ECG sensor (chest) and two inertial measurement units (wrist, ankle), for a 10-12-day period of continuous data collection whilst performing their usual daily activities. The protocol includes a virtual orientation and periodic check-ins to ensure wear compliance and provide technical support. Structured sensor-wear breaks facilitate protocol compliance and acceptance. Recruitment strategies include a structured communication plan and updates with SRI sites, coordinator education, ongoing updates to foster SRI engagement, and a warm hand-off protocol to facilitate communication. RESULT: To date, 154 persons (Mean age = 83.3 years; 94 women), > 70% of the new SRI core study cohort, have enrolled. Reasons for ineligibility or non-enrollment include dermatological contraindications, 'busy' lifestyles, and perceived participation burden. Compliance with the sensor wear protocol has been consistently robust, with >90% of usable expected wear data for the protocol duration. Limited data loss due to sensor non-wear and/or sensor failure demonstrates high data quality. Participants demonstrate high independence, with study partner assistance required in 5.2% (N = 8) of cases. Withdrawals after starting data collection have been minimal (N = 3, 2.0%) and primarily attributed to skin irritation due to undisclosed dermatological contraindications or discomfort when wearing sensors at night. Thirteen (8.44%) adverse events (nonserious) have been reported, all involving minor skin irritation or bruising. CONCLUSION: Wearable technologies are feasible for remotely assessing the daily activities of octogenarians and nonagenarians with high fidelity. Insights from this study may influence preventive intervention strategies against age-associated neurological diseases and support the enhancement of cognitive longevity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".