Midlife Vascular Risk Factors and the Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: We examine whether midlife vascular risk factors (VRFs) are associated with increased risk of incident Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of published cohort studies. METHODS: Original cohort studies were included if they reported adjusted combined odds ratio (COR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or enough information to quantify the association between risk for AD in late-life and baseline VRFs of midlife. RESULTS: There were positive and significant associations between high blood pressure (COR 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01-1.70), hypercholesterolemia (COR 1.72; 95% CI: 1.32-2.24), obesity (COR 1.88; 95% CI: 1.32-2.69), and diabetes mellitus in midlife (COR 1.4; 95% CI: 1.25-1.57). Smoking and hyperhomocysteinemia (although only one high-quality paper) were also associated with an increased risk of AD generally. CONCLUSIONS: These results strengthen the epidemiological evidence that VRFs of midlife significantly increase risk for AD.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".