The cost of Alzheimer's disease in China and re‐estimation of costs worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The socioeconomic costs of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in China and its impact on global economic burden remain uncertain. METHODS: We collected data from 3098 patients with AD in 81 representative centers across China and estimated AD costs for individual patient and total patients in China in 2015. Based on this data, we re-estimated the worldwide costs of AD. RESULTS: The annual socioeconomic cost per patient was US $19,144.36, and total costs were US $167.74 billion in 2015. The annual total costs are predicted to reach US $507.49 billion in 2030 and US $1.89 trillion in 2050. Based on our results, the global estimates of costs for dementia were US $957.56 billion in 2015, and will be US $2.54 trillion in 2030, and US $9.12 trillion in 2050, much more than the predictions by the World Alzheimer Report 2015. DISCUSSION: China bears a heavy burden of AD costs, which greatly change the estimates of AD cost worldwide.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".