ArticleScientific reports2024
The validity of studying healthy aging with cognitive tests measuring different constructs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic Aging and Cognitive Performance in General and Psychiatric Populations: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026Review
- Unraveling the Effects ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Alzheimer disease seen through the lens of sex and gender.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A clinically useful characterization of the cognitive aging process requires the development of valid and robust behavioral tests, with an emphasis on explaining and understanding typical inter-individual variability in cognition. Here, using a dataset that includes behavioral scores collected with the National Institute of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) and other auxiliary tests, we examined (1) the differences between young and old adults across different cognitive domains, (2) the strength of across-subject correlations in behavioral test scores, (3) the consistency of low-dimensional behavioral representations across age using factor analysis, and (4) the accuracy of behavioral scores in predicting participants' age. Our results revealed that (1) elderly females had better verbal episodic memory scores than elderly males, (2) across-subject correlations between behavioral tests varied with age group, (3) although a three-factor model explained the behavioral data in both age groups, some tasks loaded to different factors between the two groups, and (4) age-performance relationship (i.e. a regression model linking age to cognitive scores) in one group cannot be extrapolated to predict age in the other group, indicating an inconsistency in age-performance relationships across groups. These findings suggest that executive function tests might tap into different cognitive processes in different age groups, which might ultimately suggest that a statistically significant between-group difference in test performance might not always reflect differences in the same underlying cognitive processes. Overall, this study calls for more caution when interpreting age-related differences and similarities between age groups with different cognitive abilities even when the same tests are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.