O4‐02‐06: Cerebral microbleeds and cognitive impairment in community‐dwelling elderly from Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral microbleeds (CMB) are considered to be a novel marker for cerebral small vessel disease. Several studies from Caucasian populations have shown a link between these microbleeds and the occurrence of cognitive impairment and dementia. However, data from population-based studies in other non-Caucasian populations are lacking. We, therefore, examined the association between CMBs and cognitive impairment in community-dwelling elderly from Singapore. This study is part of the on-going Singapore Chinese Eye Study and Singapore Malay Eye Study. Selected subjects aged 60 years and over were invited to undergo clinical assessments, including neuropsychological testing and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We graded CMBs on susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) sequences using the Brain Observer Microbleed Scale (BOMBS). Cognitive function was categorized into no cognitive impairment (NCI), cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND)-mild, CIND-moderate and dementia using internationally accepted criteria. The associations between CMB and cognitive function were assessed using logistic regression models. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed adjusting for age and gender, and additionally for mean arterial blood pressure, serum total cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, smoking, presence of white matter lesions and lacunar infarcts. In this study, we included 356 participants, of whom 89 (25%) had any CMB including 64 with lobar CMB only. A total of 112 persons were diagnosed with CIND-mild, 85 with CIND-moderate and 9 with dementia. Presence of any CMBs was neither associated with CIND-mild (age-gender-adjusted OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.67-2.30) nor with CIND-moderate/dementia (OR: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.73-2.87). For lobar CMBs the corresponding age-gender-adjusted OR for CIND-mild was 1.31 (95% CI: 0.90-1.91) dementia /dementia 1.15 (95% CI: 0.92-1.42). Additional adjustments for systemic factors and other MRI lesions did not alter these results. In this study among community-dwelling Asians, persons with CMBs were not more likely to have cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".