Association of Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome with Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Factors: Results from an Original Study and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motoric cognitive risk (MCR) syndrome, a recently described pre-dementia syndrome, has been associated with cardiovascular disease and their risk factors (CVDRF). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether MCR syndrome was associated with CVDRF in French community-dwelling older adults, and to quantitatively evaluate, with a systematic review and meta-analysis, the association of MCR syndrome with CVDRF. METHODS: Based on a cross-sectional design, 238 older adults without dementia were selected from the French GAIT study. An English and French systematic Medline and Embase search (without limiting date of publication) was also conducted in February 2017 using the terms "motoric cognitive risk syndrome" OR "motoric cognitive risk" OR "motoric risk". The systematic review and meta-analysis included 8 studies. CVDRF were defined as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, stroke, obesity and abnormal waist-hip ratio (WHR). RESULTS: The prevalence of MCR syndrome in the current original study was 16.8%. MCR syndrome was associated with abnormalWHR(Odds ratio [OR] >2.8 with p < 0.020) and high blood pressure (OR >2.5 with p < 0.025). Of the 202 originally identified abstracts, 7 (3.5%) were selected for the systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that all pooled OR were significant with a p-value <0.001 (OR = 1.41 for cardiovascular diseases, 1.21 for hypertension, 1.44 for diabetes, 2.05 for stroke, and 1.34 for obesity). When pooling all CVDRF, the overall OR was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.33-1.45) with p-value <0.001. CONCLUSION: MCR syndrome is significantly associated with CVDRF. These findings suggest that a vascular mechanism may underlie the pathophysiology of MCR syndrome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".