MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aging in Down Syndrome: Morbidity and Mortality

2010· article· en· W2017780460 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Torr, André Strydom, Paul J. Patti, Nancy Jokinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCINAHLDown syndromeLife expectancyMedicineDementiaGerontologyPsychological interventionMEDLINEPediatricsPsychiatryDiseasePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The life expectancy of adults with Down syndrome has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, leading to increasing numbers of adults with Down syndrome now living into middle and old age. Early‐onset dementia of the Alzheimer type is highly prevalent in adults with Down syndrome in the sixth decade, and this has overshadowed other important conditions related to aging among adults with Down syndrome. The authors' aim was to update and summarize current knowledge on these conditions, and examine causes of morbidity and mortality in older people with Down syndrome by conducting a systematic review of the published literature for the period: 1993–2008. They reviewed English‐language literature drawn from searches in the electronic databases Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, as well as supplementary historical papers. The authors conclude that functional decline in older adults with Down syndrome cannot be assumed to be due only to dementia of the Alzheimer type (which is not inevitable in all adults with Down syndrome). Functional decline may be the result from a range of disorders, especially sensory and musculoskeletal impairments. Given the high rates of early‐onset age‐related disorders among adults with Down syndrome, programmatic screening, monitoring, and preventive interventions are required to limit secondary disabilities and premature mortality. With respect to assessment and treatment, in the absence of specialist disability physicians, geriatricians have a role to play.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations119
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207