Joint effect of stroke and APOE 4 on dementia risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although stroke and APOE 4 are independent risk factors for dementia, their combined effect remains uncertain. We assessed their joint effect on dementia risk. METHODS: Subjects participated in Phases 1 and 2 of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). Dementia was diagnosed by consensus, and stroke was diagnosed by history or clinical examination. Analyses were first conducted among clinical participants only, and then rerun with the screening sample included as well. RESULTS: Analyses included 949 participants from CSHA-1 and 1,413 from CSHA-2. During a median 4.6-year follow-up, 740 were included in the CSHA-1 to -2 incidence study. Among clinical participants, the highest prevalence (40.6% for CSHA-1 and 57.6% for CSHA-2) and incidence (8.4 per 100 person-years) of dementia occurred in elderly having both stroke and APOE 4; the lowest prevalence (19.8% for CSHA-1 and 23.3% for CSHA-2) and incidence (4.3 per 100 person-years) were among persons having neither. These findings held true when the screening sample was included. The adjusted hazard ratios of incident dementia, relative to elderly with neither stroke nor APOE 4, were 1.33 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.43) for stroke alone, 2.06 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.99) for APOE 4 alone, and 2.57 (95% CI 1.11 to 5.94) for both. No interaction on additive or multiplicative scales was suggested. CONCLUSIONS: The joint presence of stroke and APOE 4 was associated with a greater risk of dementia compared with absence of these two factors. The effect of stroke on dementia does not seem to be modified by APOE 4.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".