16-Year Survival of the Canadian Collaborative Cohort of Related Dementias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Survival estimates are integral to care for patients diagnosed with dementia. Few Canadian studies have carried out long-term follow-up of well-described cohorts, analyzing survival related to multiple risk factors. Methods Survival analysis of an inception cohort enrolled at a British Columbia (BC) tertiary dementia referral clinic between 1997 and 1999 was undertaken. Vital status was completed for 168 patients diagnosed with dementia. An evaluation of the effects of demographics, vascular risk factors, cognitive and functional ratings, apolipoprotein 4-status, and cholinesterase use on survival was performed using a log-rank test and time-dependent Cox regression. Survival of this dementia cohort was compared with the age-matched life expectancy of persons in BC. Results In all, 158/168 (94.0%) subjects died over 16.6 years, with a median survival of 7.08 years. Risk factors associated with shorter survival in dementia groups included age of onset ≥80 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.32); greater functional disability (Disability Assessment for Dementia<55% [HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.04-2.08]); and cumulative medical illness severity (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale≥7 [HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08-2.12)]. Compared with the BC population, years of potential life lost for dementia subjects aged <65 was 15.36 years, and for dementia subjects aged ≥80 it was 1.82 years. Conclusions Survival in dementia subjects is shorter than population life expectancies for each age strata, with greatest impact on younger patients. For people diagnosed with dementia, age ≥80 years, cumulative medical illness severity, and functional disabilities are the most significant survival predictors and can be used to guide prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".