Spiritual activity is associated with better cognitive function in old age.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the association between late-life spiritual activity participation and cognitive function in older Chinese adults in Hong Kong. METHODS: Participants aged 60 years or older without clinical dementia or major psychiatric disorders were recruited. Dementia severity and global cognitive function were assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating and Cantonese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination, respectively. Cognitive performance was measured using 10-minute delayed recall, the Category Verbal Fluency Test, Visual Aural Digit Span Test, and Modified Card Sorting Test. Psychological status was assessed using the Chinese version of the Purpose in Life scale. Activities participated in were categorised into 6 domains of physical, cognitive, social, prosocial, spiritual, and recreational activities. RESULTS: A total of 380 participants were enrolled. Bivariate correlation showed that the composite score of cognitive function was positively correlated with aerobic exercise (r = 0.14; p = 0.01), cognitive activity (r = 0.30; p < 0.001), and spiritual activity (r = 0.16; p = 0.002). Multiple linear regression suggested that frequent participation in cognitive activity (B = 0.87, beta = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52-1.25 and p < 0.001) and spiritual activity (B = 0.45, beta = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.13-0.76 and p = 0.01) were associated with better cognitive function after controlling for age and years of education. CONCLUSION: Engagement in spiritual activity may benefit cognitive function in old age. Longitudinal studies are recommended to further examine the causal relationship of spiritual activity and cognitive function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".