More Than the Epidemiology of Alzheimer's Disease: Contributions of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To highlight contributions to knowledge made by the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). METHOD: The CSHA began in 1991, with follow-ups in 1996 and 2001. It was national in scope, with 18 study centres and a coordinating centre. It included 10 263 participants; of these, 9008 were in the community, and 1255 were in institutions. In each phase, community participants were screened for cognitive impairment, and where appropriate, cognitive status was determined by a detailed clinical examination. Data on possible risk factors for dementia were collected at baseline. Data on caring for people with dementia were collected in each phase. RESULTS: The prevalence of dementia was established at 8% of those aged 65 years and over; incidence (new cases each year) was about 2%. Cognitive impairment not dementia (CIND) was more than twice as common as dementia. Factors affecting the risk of institutionalization, mortality, and the health of caregivers were examined. The costs of dementia were conservatively estimated at dollar 3.9 billion in 1991. Risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia are presented; it is noteworthy that physical activity appeared to protect against all forms of cognitive decline, particularly for women. Clinical contributions include the development of norms for several neuropsychological tests. Other topics include the health of those with CIND, predicting dementia, medication use, frailty and healthy aging, and urinary incontinence. CONCLUSION: The CSHA has contributed substantially to knowledge of the epidemiology of dementia, including AD, and to many other topics relevant to seniors' health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".