Comparison of mental cognitive function of A‐bomb survivors and non‐A‐bomb survivors in Nagasaki
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1945, an atomic bomb (A-bomb) was dropped on Nagasaki City, killing an estimated 74 000 citizens and injuring another 75 000. About 40 449 A-bomb survivors suffering from symptoms of radiation exposure currently live in Nagasaki Prefecture. As of March 2018, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare reported that the mean age of A-bomb survivors in Japan was 82.06 years. In 2015–2016, we investigated the prevalence of cognitive and psychiatric symptoms among A-bomb survivors in Nagasaki City. We conducted face-to-face surveys with 145 A-bomb survivors and 70 non-A-bomb survivors who agreed to participate. We have protected the privacy of subjects and this survey followed the Declaration of Helsinki (2013, Brazil). The protocol of this survey was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of Nagasaki University. All participants gave informed consent and their anonymity has been preserved. The mean age of participants was 77.5 years. In the first-stage survey, the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment function test (MoCA-J)1 was used to assess each participant's cognitive function. The result showed that 59% and 67% of participants in the A-bomb and non-A-bomb groups, respectively, did not exceed the cut-off value of 26 on the MoCA-J. No significant difference in MoCA-J score was found between the two groups (χ2-test; P = 0.23). In addition, the odds ratio (OR) for a low MoCA-J score (<26) was 0.69 times higher for the A-bomb group than for the non-A-bomb group, but this difference was not significant (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38–1.26). In addition, the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to evaluate each participant's general psychiatric symptoms. The results showed that 17% and 8.6% of participants in the A-bomb and non-A-bomb groups, respectively, exceeded the GHQ-12 cut-off value. However, the difference between the two groups was not significant (χ2- test; P = 0.11). The OR for a high GHQ-12 score (≥4) was 2.1 times higher for the A-bomb group than for the non-A-bomb group, but this difference was not significant (95%CI, 0.82–5.44). Next, a second-stage survey was conducted on the participants with a GHQ-12 score ≥ 4 and/or a MoCA-J score < 26. In the second-stage survey, the OR for the appearance of dementia were determined based on Mini-Mental State Examination scores. Overall, 12.3% and 21.4% of the participants in the A-bomb and non-A-bomb groups, respectively, showed possible dementia (mean Mini-Mental State Examination score < 24). Although the OR for the A-bomb group was 0.51 times higher than that for the non-A-bomb group, the difference was not significant (95%CI, 0.15–1.70). No definite conclusions have been reached regarding the relationship between traumatic stress and dementia onset, as several previous studies have reported mixed findings.2, 3 On the other hand, it has been reported that no relationship exists between radiation exposure and dementia onset in A-bomb survivors in Hiroshima.4 In the present survey, no significant difference in the frequency of dementia occurrence was found between A-bomb and non-A-bomb survivors. However, two main limitations should be noted. First, it is impossible to disentangle the full effects of other types of life events and disaster-related stress in the participants’ lives, although we did attempt to resolve this issue to some extent by recruiting mainly individuals who had been living in almost the same areas. Second, in this survey we targeted only elderly people living at home. Therefore, further research involving A-bomb survivors living in senior homes and elderly hospitals is needed. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».