Lifestyle Behavior Pattern Is Associated with Different levels of Risk for Incident Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease: The Cache County Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify distinct behavioral patterns of diet, exercise, social interaction, church attendance, alcohol consumption, and smoking and to examine their association with subsequent dementia risk. DESIGN: Longitudinal, population-based dementia study. SETTING: Rural county in northern Utah, at-home evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand four hundred ninety-one participants without dementia (51% male, average age 73.0 ± 5,7; average education 13.7 ± 4.1 years) initially reported no problems in activities of daily living and no stroke or head injury within the past 5 years. MEASUREMENTS: Six dichotomized lifestyle behaviors were examined (diet: high ≥ median on the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension scale; exercise: ≥5 h/wk of light activity and at least occasional moderate to vigorous activity; church attendance: attending church services at least weekly; social Interaction: spending time with family and friends at least twice weekly; alcohol: currently drinking alcoholic beverages ≥ 2 times/wk; nonsmoker: no current use or fewer than 100 cigarettes ever). Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify patterns among these behaviors. Proportional hazards regression modeled time to dementia onset as a function of behavioral class, age, sex, education, and apolipoprotein E status. Follow-up averaged 6.3 ± 5.3 years, during which 278 cases of incident dementia (200 Alzheimer's disease (AD)) were diagnosed. RESULTS: LCA identified four distinct lifestyle classes. Unhealthy-religious (UH-R; 11.5%), unhealthy-nonreligious (UH-NR; 10.5%), healthy-moderately religious (H-MR; 38.5%), and healthy-very religious (H-VR; 39.5%). UH-NR (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54, P = .028), H-MR (HR = 0.56, P = .003), and H-VR (HR = 0.58, P = .005) had significantly lower dementia risk than UH-R. Results were comparable for AD, except that UH-NR was less definitive. CONCLUSION: Functionally independent older adults appear to cluster into subpopulations with distinct patterns of lifestyle behaviors with different levels of risk for subsequent dementia and 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".