Sleep disturbances and dementia risk: A multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few longitudinal studies assessed whether sleep disturbances are associated with dementia risk. METHODS: Sleep disturbances were assessed in three population-based studies (H70 study and Kungsholmen Project [Sweden]; Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia study [Finland]). Late-life baseline analyses (3-10 years follow-up) used all three studies (N = 1446). Baseline ages ≈ 70 years (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia, H70), and ≈84 years (Kungsholmen Project). Midlife baseline (age ≈ 50 years) analyses used Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (21 and 32 years follow-up) (N = 1407). RESULTS: Midlife insomnia (fully adjusted hazard ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.50) and late-life terminal insomnia (fully adjusted odds ratio = 1.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.08-3.49) were associated with a higher dementia risk. Late-life long sleep duration (>9 hours) was also associated with an increased dementia risk (adjusted odds ratio = 3.98, 95% confidence interval = 1.87-8.48). DISCUSSION: Midlife insomnia and late-life terminal insomnia or long sleep duration were associated with a higher late-life dementia risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".