Albuminuria in Association with Cognitive Function and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cerebral microvascular disease is considered to contribute to cognitive dysfunction. We opted to explore whether albuminuria, a marker of systemic microangiopathy, is associated with cognitive impairment, dementia, and cognitive function. DESIGN: Systematic review; independent reviewers screened 2359 articles, derived through the search strategy, for identification of observational studies quantifying an association of albuminuria with the outcomes of interest, abstracted data on study characteristics and results and evaluated studies on quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults. MESUREMENTS: Cognitive impairment and dementia, defined by validated neuropsychological tests or clinical guidelines, respectively, and cognitive function, assessed by validated instruments. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible studies were identified. Albuminuria was associated with cognitive impairment (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.19-1.53; 7,852 cases), dementia (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.10-1.65; 5,758 cases), clinical Alzheimer's disease (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.11-1.69; 629 cases) and vascular dementia (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.16-3.31; 186 cases); the effect remained significant among longitudinal, population-based and high quality studies. Time-to-event analysis on prospective studies of non-demented at baseline individuals also showed a significant association with incident dementia (Risk Ratio: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.16-1.99; 971 cases). Worse global cognitive performance (Hedge's g: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.18, -0.09; 68,348 subjects) and accelerated cognitive decline (g: -0.20, 95% CI: -0.34, -0.07; 31,792 subjects) were noted among subjects with albuminuria, who also scored lower in executive function, processing speed, verbal fluency, and verbal memory. CONCLUSIONS: Albuminuria was independently associated with cognitive impairment, dementia and cognitive decline. The stronger effects for vascular dementia and cognitive performance in domains primarily affected by microvascular disease support that the association could be mediated by shared microvascular pathology in the kidney and the brain.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".