Concomitant vascular and neurodegenerative pathologies double the risk of dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The relative contributions of vascular and degenerative pathology to dementia are unknown. We aim to quantify the proportion of dementia explained by potentially preventable vascular lesions. METHODS: We systematically searched for population-based cohorts before February 2017 reporting clinicopathological data for individuals with and without dementia. We calculated the summary proportion and absolute risk of dementia comparing subjects with and without the pathology. RESULTS: We identified 10 studies comprising 2856 subjects. Vascular-type pathology and mixed pathology are respectively two and three times more likely in demented patients. The summary proportion of dementia is 77%-86% in subjects with mixed degenerative and vascular pathology and 45% in subjects with pure Alzheimer-type pathology. DISCUSSION: Patients with mixed pathologies have nearly twice the incremental risk of dementia compared with patients with only Alzheimer-type lesions. Consequently, many cases of dementia could be prevented or delayed by targeting the vascular component.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".