Midlife improvements in financial situation are associated with a reduced dementia risk later in life: the CAIDE 30-year study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Perceived financial strain is associated with various health conditions, but it is unknown whether it is associated with an increased risk for dementia. The goal is to examine the associations between midlife perceptions of financial situation and dementia risk later in life. METHODS: Participants were derived from the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia population-based cohort study (n = 2000) (between 1972 and 1987, baseline mean age 50 years) in Finland. Participants returned for two re-examinations in late life (in 1998 and 2005-2008, mean age 71 and 78 years). In this study, 1442 subjects that participated in at least one re-examination (mean total follow-up 25 years) were included in analyses. Financial strain was measured using two questions in midlife on perceptions of financial situation and perceptions of changes in financial situation. For each question, participants were categorized into three groups reporting improvement, worsening, or stability, with the latter set as the reference group. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: The group reporting better financial situation had a reduced risk for dementia (fully adjusted model: odds ratio (OR): 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86). In contrast, the group reporting worse financial situation did not have an increased risk for dementia (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.53-2.02). Analyses on perceptions of current financial situation showed that the groups reporting satisfaction or dissatisfaction with financial situation did not differ in risk for dementia. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to show that midlife improvements in financial situation are associated with a reduced dementia risk later in life. Potential pathways related to stress reduction, improved lifestyle, and potential biological mechanisms are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".