Mild and moderate cognitive impairment and mortality among Brazilian older adults in long-term follow-up: The Bambui Health Aging Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality in older adults with and without mild or moderate cognitive impairment over 15 years of follow-up in a middle-income country, where little information on this subject is available. METHODS: A total of 1,281 community-dwelling older adults were followed-up for a median of 13.3 years. We evaluated their cognitive impairment using the Mini-Mental State Examination, categorizing it as none (1.0 SD above cutoff means), mild (1.0 SD below cutoff means) or moderate (2.0 SD below cutoff means). The date of death was determined by reviewing death certificates. Cox's proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of mortality in participants with cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Participants with mild or moderate cognitive impairment had a higher mortality risk than those without it in the unadjusted model, but these associations did not remain in the final model. After sex stratification, only men with moderate cognitive impairment had a higher mortality risk in the final model. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest an association between moderate cognitive impairment and all-cause mortality in men in a large Brazilian cohort of older adults.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".