The effect of statins on rate of cognitive decline in mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study's aims are to identify whether or not a relationship between statin use and rate of cognitive decline exists. BACKGROUND: The relationship between statins and MCI has been investigated in the past with the evidence showing mixed results. METHODS: 768 subjects were identified with MCI. Subjects were stratified into 6 possible groups according to ApoE4 status and statin use and assessed for decline in cognitive function. RESULTS: All cognitive assessments trended towards less decline with statin use. ADAS11 showed the biggest difference in mean change between statin users and nonusers (-0.82 vs. -1.22 respectively). Change reached marginal significance on the ADAS11 when stratified by ApoE4 negative subjects. CONCLUSION: All cognitive assessments trended towards less decline when subjects were concurrently treated with a statin, supporting the position that statins do not have a net negative effect on cognitive assessment and suggests a potential treatment benefit.
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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".