Educational Attainment and Socioeconomic Status of Patients With Autopsy-Confirmed Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer disease (AD) have different educational attainment and socioeconomic status than subjects without neurodegenerative disease. DESIGN: Comparison of 2 groups of autopsied patients. Information on education and occupation was obtained by telephone interview of relatives conducted post mortem. PATIENTS: One hundred fifteen patients enrolled in the University of Western Ontario Dementia Study with dementia and fulfilling diagnostic criteria of AD at autopsy were compared with 142 patients 65 years or older without dementia who died in the hospital and in whom autopsy did not show neurodegenerative disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Highest education level attained, years of education, occupation, and socioeconomic and income levels. All results were adjusted for sex, age at time of death, and year of birth. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in education, occupation, or socioeconomic and income levels between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that educational attainment is different in patients with AD than in subjects who die in the hospital from other diseases. These results indicate that education does not protect against advanced 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".