The reciprocal risks of stroke and cognitive impairment in an elderly population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke, dementia, and cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND) pose major threats to the elderly but have rarely been studied together in the same population. We aimed to compare the relative frequencies of stroke, CIND, and dementia in an elderly population and to examine whether cognitive impairment poses a risk for stroke. METHODS: Prevalences of stroke, CIND, and dementia were estimated among participants in the first clinical examination of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA-1, n = 2,914). Incidence rates were determined at the 5-year follow-up (CSHA-2) among those cognitively normal and stroke free at CSHA-1 (n = 828). The associations between cognitive impairment and stroke were assessed by Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Among elderly Canadians, the age-standardized prevalence of stroke, CIND, and dementia were 8%, 17%, and 8%, respectively. Alone or combined, they affected one fourth of the elderly. Among stroke survivors, 64% had cognitive impairment compared with 21% among stroke-free persons. Among the cognitively impaired, 25% had a stroke compared with 4% among the cognitively normal. The incidence rates of stroke, CIND, and dementia were 3, 6, and 3 per 100 person-years, respectively. Compared with cognitively normal subjects, the adjusted risk for incident stroke was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to1.9) in patients with CIND and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2) in patients with dementia regardless of whether "questionable stroke" was included. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke and cognitive impairment pose risk for each other. CIND is highly prevalent, and some of its subtypes may represent treatable preludes to stroke and/or dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".