A comparison between seven scales of neuropsychological assessments for cognitive impairment screening in Chinese older population: a cross-sectional study in Chongqing, China.

Social grouping and social behavior are adaptive strategies exhibited by a wide range of animal species, and these strategies can confer several fitness benefits (Krause and Ruxton ). Across different species and within populations, social structures and sociality can vary considerably, having fundamental consequences for ecology and evolution (Krause and Ruxton ; Kurvers et al. ; Snijders et al. ; Snyder‐Mackler et al. ). Identifying the drivers which underpin animal social groups and their evolution gives us access to invaluable tools to bolster our understanding of population dynamics and inform conservation strategy (Kurvers et al. 2014; Snijders et al. ; Snyder‐Mackler et al. ). Social grouping and social behavior can confer benefits to individuals which include increasing foraging success and access to potential mates, providing opportunities for social learning and information transfer, but also anti‐predator defense mechanisms, with possibilities for the formation of cooperative bonds (Beck et al. ; Berdahl et al. ; Croft et al. ; Farine and Sheldon ; Gokcekus et al. ; Krause and Ruxton ; Lehtonen and Jaatinen ; Ripperger et al. ). These benefits however, must be traded off against the costs attributed to group membership, which include parasite and disease transmission, competition and conflict over finite resources and mating opportunities (Krause et al. ; Wilkinson et al. ). Where this balance of trade offs results in the formation of social groups, they may take on many forms: societies may be simple or complex in structure, short lived or long term, stable or characterized by fission‐fusion dynamics (Croft et al. ; M. J. Silk ). Within these societies, individuals may also exhibit preferences to group or associate with individuals that share similar phenotypic traits such as sex, size, personality, or that are genetically related (Croft et al. ; Farine ). The kinship structure of groups, that is, how individual members are related to one another is a key component driving both within group cooperation and the evolution of group living and interaction (Pereira et al. ). Kin structured social groups can provide enhanced benefits to members through inclusive fitness benefits—through for example, increasing the fitness of group members by sharing information regarding resources, cooperative foraging, group predator inspection and evasion, providing social tolerance and coalitionary support (Hamilton , ; Hepper ; Milinski ; Smith ). However, inclusive fitness benefits provided by associating with kin are not fixed and result from the complex interplay between environmental context, resource availability and the individuals themselves (Schneider and Bilde ; Vitt et al. ). Studying dyadic kinship relationships can aid our understanding of the evolution of cooperation, the reduction of conflict and aggression and inbreeding avoidance (Hamilton , , ; Pusey ). Examining kinship structure at the level of the community can inform on the nature of collective behaviors, on cooperation among kin and non‐kin dyads within groups and the amelioration of conflict (Croft et al. ; Grout et al. ; Rueger et al. ). Investigating kin composition at the level of the population can facilitate our understanding of dispersal patterns, genetic diversity and connectivity (Carrier et al. ; Hamilton , ). Understanding the mechanisms shaping social structure has advanced in terrestrial systems, whereas comparable research in marine environments has faced logistical constraints, limited accessibility, and challenges in identifying individuals (Jacoby et al. ). Early marine studies focused largely on teleost fish (Arnold ; Behrmann‐Godel et al. ; Griffiths and Ward ; Hain and Neff ; Makowicz et al. ; Thünken et al. ). Subsequent work on cetaceans demonstrated that social associations are often correlated with genetic relatedness in species such as bottlenose () and common () dolphins, (Diaz‐Aguirre et al. ; Frère et al. ; Möller et al. ; Parsons et al. ; J. B. Silk ; Wiszniewski et al. ). However, investigations of kinship and social structure in elasmobranchs remain limited and have yielded mixed results. Kin‐structured associations have been reported in juvenile bluntnose sixgill sharks () and juvenile lemon sharks () in nursery environments (Andrews et al. ; Guttridge et al. ; Larson et al. ). In contrast, a study on juvenile small spotted catsharks () conducted under controlled laboratory conditions found no influence of maternal relatedness on social structure (Jacoby et al. ). Similarly, studies on adult elasmobranchs, including spotted eagle rays () and blacktip reef sharks (), have generally reported a lack of kin‐structured sociality, likely reflective of the ecological context, the absence of parental care in this taxonomic group, and fission‐fusion dynamics (Mourier and Planes ; Newby et al. ). However, most elasmobranch behavioral studies infer social structure from spatial co‐occurrence rather than direct measures of