The association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and dementia: The Health, Aging and Body Composition (Health <scp>ABC</scp>) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Data on the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and dementia are limited and conflicting. We aimed to determine whether subclinical thyroid dysfunction was associated with dementia and cognitive decline. DESIGN: Population-based prospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Adults aged 70-79 years with measured thyroid function, but no dementia at baseline, and Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) at baseline and follow-up. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was incident-adjudicated dementia, based on 3MS, hospital records and dementia drugs. Secondary outcome was change in 3MS. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, education and baseline 3MS, and then further for cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: Among 2558 adults, 85% were euthyroid (TSH 0.45-4.49mIU/L), 2% had subclinical hyperthyroidism with mildly decreased TSH (TSH 0.10-0.44 mIU/L), 1% subclinical hyperthyroidism with suppressed TSH (TSH < 0.10 mIU/L with normal free thyroxine [FT4]) and 12% subclinical hypothyroidism (TSH 4.50-19.99 mIU/L with normal FT4). Over 9 years, 22% developed dementia. Compared to euthyroidism, risk of dementia was higher in participants with subclinical hyperthyroidism with suppressed TSH (HR 2.38, 95% CI = 1.13;5.04), while we found no significant association in those with mildly decreased TSH (HR 0.79, 95% CI = 0.45;1.38) or with subclinical hypothyroidism (HR 0.91, 95% CI = 0.70;1.19). Participants with subclinical hyperthyroidism with suppressed TSH had a larger decline in 3MS (-3.89, 95% CI = -7.62; -0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, subclinical hyperthyroidism with a TSH < 0.10 mIU/L was associated with a higher risk of dementia and a larger cognitive decline, while subclinical hyperthyroidism with mildly decreased TSH or subclinical hypothyroidism were not.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".