Vascular Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Very few population-based studies have systematically examined incident vascular dementia (VaD). From the Canadian Study of Health and Aging cohort, incidence rates of VaD were determined and risk factors analyzed. METHODS: This was a cohort incidence study that followed 8623 subjects presumed to be free of dementia over a 5-year period. The risk factors were examined with a nested prospective case-control study. Exposure was determined by means of a risk factor questionnaire administered to the subject or a proxy at the beginning of the study. RESULTS: On the basis of 38 476 person-years at risk, the annual incidence rate was estimated to be 2.52 per thousand undemented Canadians (95% CI 2. 02 to 3.02). Including an estimation of the probability of VaD among the decedents, this figure rose to 3.79. For the risk factors study, 105 incident cases of VaD according to the NINCDS-AIREN criteria were compared with 802 control subjects. Significant risk factors were: age (OR=1.05), residing in a rural area (2.03), living in an institution (2.33), diabetes (2.15), depression (2.41), apolipoprotein E epsilon4 (2.34), hypertension for women (2.05), heart problems for men (2.52), taking aspirin (2.33), and occupational exposure to pesticides or fertilizers (2.05). Protective factors were eating shellfish (0.46) and regular exercise for women (0.46). There was no relation with sex, education, or alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed some previously reported risk factors but also suggested new ones. It raised concerns about the prescription of aspirin and perhaps other factors related to rural life.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.011 |
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".