Prevention of Age-Related Cognitive Decline: Which Strategies, When, and forWhom?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain aging is characterized by the progressive and gradual accumulation of detrimental changes in structure and function, which increase risk of age-related cognitive decline and dementia. This devastating chronic condition generates a huge social and economic burden and accounts for 11.2% of years of disability. The increase in lifespan has contributed to the increase in dementia prevalence; however, there is currently no curative treatment for most causes of dementias. This paper reviews evidence-based strategies to build, enhance, and preserve cognition over the lifespan by examining approaches that work best, proposing when in the life course they should be implemented, and in which population group(s). Recent work shows a tendency to decreased age-specific prevalence and incidence of cognitive problems and dementia among people born later in the first half of the 20th century, citing higher educational levels, improvements in lifestyle, and better handling of vascular risk factors. This implies that we can target modifiable environmental, lifestyle, and health risk factors to modify the trajectory of cognitive decline before the onset of irreversible dementia. Because building cognitive reserve and prevention of cognitive decline are of critical importance, interventions are needed at every stage of the life course to foster cognitive stimulation, and enable healthy eating habits and physical activity throughout the lifespan. Preventive interventions to decrease and delay cognitive decline and its consequences in old age will also require collaboration and action on the part of policy-makers at the political and social level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".