Evaluating Spousal Abuse as a Potential Risk Factor for Alzheimer’s Disease: Rationale, Needs and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive head trauma is an identified risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The violence in wife assault is repetitive and targets the head. This association provides a rationale for studying the relationship between spousal abuse and AD. DESIGN: To preliminarily evaluate the possibility of an increased susceptibility for AD in women subjected to spousal abuse and to identify challenges associated with such a study, we performed a pilot case-control study involving women with AD and compared the incidence of spousal abuse against two control groups. Forty consecutive women with AD referred to a Memory Disorders Clinic were enrolled. Individuals were evaluated at three visits (0, 3, 9 months) and were followed for an additional 12 months to ensure that no other diagnosis emerged. Two control groups were likewise assessed. RESULTS: 17.5% (7/40) of the women (average age 71 years) with AD reported spousal abuse with head trauma. In control group 1, 5.0% (2/40) and in control group 2, 7.5% (3/40) of the women reported spousal abuse with head trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The development of AD may be a potential long-term consequence of wife assault. Our study suggests spousal abuse as a possible risk factor for AD, and supports the need for larger studies. However, there are practical challenges associated with the successful execution of such a study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".