A pilot study to examine the association between immigration experience and cognition among older Chinese Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have reported the relationships between immigration experiences and cognition in older adults who immigrated to the US across different racial/ethnic groups. However, fewer studies have examined the unique risk factors of Alzheimer's Disease and Related-Dementias (ADRD) in older Chinese Americans who have immigrated to the US. Therefore, this pilot study aimed to investigate the association between immigration experiences and cognition among older Chinese Americans. METHOD: Data for this pilot study was collected at the Mount Sinai Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC). Eighty-eight Chinese American older adults, with either normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment, were included in the analyses (mean age: 71.2±6.6 years; 29.5% Male). Information about immigration experiences - including acculturation to Chinese or Western cultures, age at immigration, and duration of immigration (i.e., length of time in the U.S.), - were collected via a questionnaire. Global cognition was evaluated using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The sum score of CDR (CDRSOB, higher scores indicate poorer cognition) and the total score of MoCA (higher scores indicate better cognition) were used for the analyses. Linear regression models were used to examine the association between immigration experiences and cognition, while controlling for age, gender, education, and socioeconomic status. RESULT: Greater Chinese cultural acculturation was marginally associated with better cognitive performance, as evidenced by higher MoCA total scores (p = 0.056) and lower CDRSOB (p = 0.079). Furthermore, younger age at immigration and longer duration of immigration appeared to be associated with poorer cognition, although the result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings suggest a relationship between immigration experiences and cognition among older Chinese Americans. Further research with larger samples is needed to gain a better understanding of the role of immigration in AD/ADRD risk within this historically underrepresented population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".