From Counting to Understanding: The Evolving Epidemiologic Approach to Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aging of populations has raised concerns over the impact of an aging population on the prevalence and incidence of age-associated diseases, such as the dementias. This demographic shift began earlier in Europe than elsewhere; during the 1980s, several epidemiologic studies recorded the prevalence and incidence of dementia in Europe (1–4). Other studies investigated US populations (5–7). By the early 1990s, comparative summaries had been written (8), and general consensus arose on several key findings. From age 65 to age 90 years, incidence and prevalence rates double with roughly every 5 years of age and then slow. The balance between Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementias may vary from place to place, but prevalence and incidence rates are comparable among countries when all forms of dementia are combined. Some studies showed different rates for men and women; however, this is far from consistent, and there seems to be little overall difference for all forms of dementia combined. Because of their greater number, there are more women with dementia.
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 | 0.024 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".