Cobalamin and homocysteine in older adults: Do we need to test for serum levels in the work0up of dementia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews available information on the relationship between cobalamin (Cbl), homocysteine (tHcy) and cognitive decline and dementia in older adults with the aim to propose recommendations as to the need to perform such determinations in the work-up for dementia. The article includes brief reviews of the magnitude of the problem, effects of the Canadian folic acid fortification program on the Cbl and tHcy status in older adults, relation between Cbl and tHcy and cognition and cognitive changes, and available data on treatment trials up to March 2007. Recommendations and levels of evidence were assigned and approved by consensus following the directives of the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia. The review concludes that determination of Cbl (vit B12) levels are recommended in the work-up for dementia and cognitive decline because of the high prevalence of Cbl deficits in this population, independently of the possible effects of normalization of Cbl levels on cognitive function. Even though elevated tHcy is a risk factor for dementia, there is no proo of that normalization of tHcy levels changes the course of the disease. Clinical trials on that regard are on going.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".