Bibliographic record
Abstract
HEALTH ISSUES: Dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) increases exponentially with age from the age of 65. The number of people with dementia will increase significantly over the next three decades as the population ages. While prevalence and incidence rates do not differ markedly in women, compared to men, women live longer on average, so the number of women with dementia is greater than for men. Also, women are more frequently caregivers for people with dementia. Thus, dementia is an important health problem for women. KEY FINDINGS: The Canadian Study of Health and Aging showed an increase in prevalence of dementia with age for both sexes, approximately doubling every five years of age. Rates of AD were higher in women whereas rates of vascular dementia were higher in men. The risk of AD increased with increasing age, lower education, and apolipoprotein E epsilon4. Regular physical activity was clearly protective in women; this was less clear for men. Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, wine consumption, and past exposure to vaccines decreased the risk of AD. Estrogen replacement therapy did not reduce the risk of AD. About three quarters of caregivers for dementia patients were women. DATA GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The protective effect of regular physical activity for AD provides an additional reason to promote regular physical activity at all ages. Ongoing surveillance of the incidence, prevalence and risks for dementia is needed to monitor the impact of treatments as well as the aging of the population on the burden of 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.019 |
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".