Alcohol Abuse, Cognitive Impairment, and Mortality Among Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of alcohol abuse, the association of alcohol abuse with cognitive impairment, and the contribution of alcohol abuse to short-term mortality in a cohort of older people screened for dementia. DESIGN: Using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA)--a representative, national cohort study of 10,268 older persons (> or = 65 years) from communities and long-term care institutions conducted in 1991--alcohol abuse and dementia were diagnosed during clinical examinations. Death was determined by telephone interview 18 months after baseline and verified by vital statistics records. SETTING: 36 regional community and 17 regional institutional populations in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The 2,873 individuals from the clinical sample of the CSHA. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnosis of alcohol abuse (questionable, definite, none), diagnosis of dementia. RESULTS: The prevalence of clinically detected definite alcohol abuse was 8.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9-9.9) and of questionable alcohol abuse was 3.7% (95% CI 3.0-4.4). Definite or questionable alcohol abuse was associated with a younger average age compared with no such abuse history, and men were significantly more likely than women to comprise definite and questionable diagnostic groups as compared with the group without alcohol abuse. The occurrence of all types of dementia except probable Alzheimer's disease was higher in those with definite or questionable alcohol abuse. Mortality at 18 months was higher among those with definite (14.8%, 95% CI 13.5-16.1) or questionable (20.0%, 95% CI 18.5-21.5) alcohol abuse, as compared with those with no alcohol abuse history (11.5%, 95% CI 10.3-12.7), and alcohol abuse (definite or questionable) conferred a 56% additional risk of short-term mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.56, 95% CI 1.11-2.20) after adjusting for age, sex, and a diagnosis of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol abuse among older people is common and occurs more frequently among men. It is associated with cognitive impairment and independently with short-term mortality. Physician screening for alcohol abuse can yield a group of older people at risk for adverse health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".