The turn towards prevention – moral narratives and the vascularization of Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a major turning point in the field of dementia research has occurred: serious and independent studies have shown that there are risk factors that can be modified in ways that reduce dementia risk. However, the reality behind this hopeful message is much more complex than simply translating it into concrete public health prescriptions regarding medications and lifestyle changes. The objective of this article is twofold: 1. In line with observations from other authors in the field of critical public health, the recent turn in dementia epistemologies will be described as a fallacy when conceived as individualized behavioral recommendations; 2. The profound change in the notion of risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – now defined using nearly identical risk factors as Vascular dementia (“vascularization of AD”) – has also had an important impact on whether people are classified as “good citizens.” After a short description of recent studies about Alzheimer’s disease and the new risk factors associated with it, three interrelated historical changes are described as being constitutive of the “new dementia.” Based on fieldwork in geriatrics in Brazil, one example will be given that illustrates how recent changes in understanding dementia result in value-laden models which, as a consequence, are sorting out people.
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) | 0.000 | 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".