MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570054228 · doi:10.1177/0840470416662885

Nutrition as a component of dementia risk reduction strategies

2016· article· en· W2570054228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carol E. Greenwood, Matthew D. Parrott

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyEnvironmental healthMedicinePopulation ageingPopulationPublic healthDiseaseNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the Alzheimer Society of Canada, within the next generation, Canada will experience a more than doubling of individuals living with dementia and a potentially economically crippling 10-fold increase in costs to Canadians. Up to 50% of cases with dementia can be attributed to seven modifiable, predominantly vascular and/or lifestyle-associated, risk factors. Multi-modal dementia risk reduction strategies, targeting diet, exercise, mental stimulation, and vascular risk monitoring, are likely to be the most successful. Diet-related strategies need to focus on overall diet quality and not on individual foods or nutrients. High-quality diets that are associated with better cognitive function and lower dementia risk with aging are high in vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, and fish and low in red meat, high-fat dairy products, sweets, and highly processed foods. It is the time to embed risk reduction strategies into our public health and healthcare infrastructure to proactively address the challenges posed by population aging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207