MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911899955 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2018.12.005

Hospitalization, surgery, and incident dementia

2019· article· en· W2911899955 on OpenAlexaff
Lars I. Eriksson, Cecilia Lundholm, Kaavya Narasimhalu, Rolf Sandin, Yaping Jin, Margaret Gatz, Nancy L. Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthVetenskapsrådetTorsten Söderbergs Stiftelse
KeywordsDementiaMedicineOrthopedic surgeryRisk factorDiseaseInternal medicinePediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated whether hospitalization with or without surgery increases risk for dementia or Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: A clinical sample (843 clinically diagnosed dementia cases; 1686 matched nondemented individuals) was identified from Swedish Twin Registry studies. A register-based sample (4293 cases; 21,465 matched controls) was identified by linkage of Swedish Twin Registry to Swedish Patient Registry records. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) status and within-pair comparisons of dementia discordant twins indicated genetic susceptibility. RESULTS: Nonsurgical hospitalization is associated with greater dementia risk than hospitalization with surgical intervention. In the register sample, thoracic, abdominal, and major orthopedic procedures entailed dementia risk; in the clinical sample, orthopedic alone. Within-pair analyses indicate that associations in part reflect genetic susceptibility in common to hospitalization and dementia. Potential gene-environment interactions were indicated by greater risk due to hospitalization among APOE ε4 noncarriers. DISCUSSION: We confirm hospitalization as a risk factor for dementia, with repeated hospitalizations a more important risk factor than surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207