Lipid-Lowering Agents and the Risk of Cognitive Impairment That Does Not Meet Criteria for Dementia, in Relation to Apolipoprotein E Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lipid-lowering agents (LLAs) might lower the risk of dementia, but any impact on other forms of cognitive impairment is not clear. We examined LLAs in relation to cognitive impairment, no dementia (CIND) and apolipoprotein E4 status. In a case control study from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, cases (n = 347) had developed CIND between the first and second study waves and controls (n = 693) had no cognitive impairment at either time. LLA use was associated with a lower odds of incident CIND in those <80 years of age (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.93) but not for those aged >or=80 years (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.15-2.10). The reduced risk was significant for statins but not for other LLAs. Adjusting for apolipoprotein E4 status did not change the point estimates of the ORs. The greatest impact of LLAs was seen in the CIND subtype circumscribed memory 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".