Motoric cognitive risk syndrome and incident dementia: results from a population‐based prospective and observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR), which is the juncture of subjective cognitive complaint and slow gait speed, is a pre-dementia stage. The aims of the study are (i) to compare characteristics between individuals who have MCR defined using slow walking speed and/or increased five-times-sit-to-stand (FTSS) time as its motor component(s); and (ii) to characterize the association of MCR and its various motor components with incident dementia including Alzheimer disease and non-Alzheimer dementia in the participants of the Epidémiologie de l'Ostéoporose (EPIDOS) study. METHODS: This prospective and observational cohort study selected 651 participants recruited from the EPIDOS study in Toulouse (France). MCR was defined as the association of subjective cognitive complaint and slow gait speed and/or increased FTSS time in participants without either dementia and mobility disabilities at baseline. Individuals with dementia were prospectively diagnosed during the physical and neuropsychological assessments included in the 7-year follow-up. RESULTS: The prevalence of MCR was around 7% when using an exclusive motor criterion, either slow gait speed or increased FTSS time, and was 20.9% when MCR subgroups were pooled. MCR was positively associated with incident dementia regardless of its type, and with Alzheimer disease in the slow gait speed MCR subgroup [odds ratio (OR) > 2.18 with P ≤ 0.037] but not with non-Alzheimer dementia. No significant association between incident dementia and MCR defined using increased FTSS time was shown. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that MCR is associated with incident dementia and that slow gait speed is the appropriate motor criterion for detecting 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".