MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081279737 · doi:10.1159/000128577

Risk Factors for Alzheimer Dementia in a Community-Based Birth Cohort at the Age of 75 Years

2008· article· en· W2081279737 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Fischer, Sonja Zehetmayer, Susanne Jungwirth, Silvia Weissgram, Wolfgang Krampla, Margarete Hinterberger, Sabine Torma, Michael Rainer, Klaus Huber, Selma Hoenigschnabl, Ellen Gelpí, Kurt Bauer, Thomas Leitha, Peter Bauer, Karl‐Heinz Tragl

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCohortMedicineProspective cohort studyCohort studyRisk factorPediatricsAlzheimer's diseaseFamily historyApolipoprotein EInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few prospective community-based cohort studies have so far concentrated specifically on the risk factors for Alzheimer dementia (AD) with onset after the age of 75 years. METHODS: We prospectively investigated a birth cohort of 585 nondemented inhabitants in the area on the East bank of the river Danube who were born between 1925 and 1926. They were investigated at the age of 75 years and followed up after 30 months. The follow-up was possible with 488 probands; 36 died, and 61 refused to participate. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis an elevated risk for late-onset AD could be found for (1) history of depressive episodes (OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.25-3.48); (2) the epsilon 4 allele of the APOE gene (OR = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.08-3.23); (3) lower serum level of folate (OR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.87-0.98); (4) no chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.20-0.81), and (5) lower education (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.03-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Five risk factors for late-onset AD could be confirmed, which might be targets for preventive strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementia and Geriatric Cognitive DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207