Dual Decline in Gait and Cognition Is Associated With Future Dementia: Evidence for a Phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: The concurrent decline in gait speed and cognition are associated with future dementia. However, the clinical profile of those who present with dual-decline has not yet been described. We aimed to describe the phenotype and risk for incident dementia of individuals who present a dual-decline in comparison with non dual-decliners. METHODS: Prospective cohort of community-dwelling older adults free of dementia at baseline. We evaluated participants’ gait speed, cognition, medical status, functionality, incidence of adverse events, and dementia biannually over 7 years. Gait speed was assessed with a 6-meter electronic-walkway, and global cognition was assessed using the MoCA test. We compared characteristics between dual-decliners and non dual-decliners using t-test, Chi-square, and hierarchical regression models. We estimated incident dementia using Cox models. RESULTS: Among 144 participants (mean age 74.23 ± 6.72 years, 54% women), 17% progressed to dementia. Dual-decliners had a three-fold risk (HR: 3.12, 95%CI:1.23-7.93, p=0.017) of progression to dementia compared with non dual-decliners. Dual-decliners were significantly older with a higher prevalence of hypertension and dyslipidemia (p=0.002). Hierarchical regression models show that age and sex alone explained 3% of the variation in the dual-decliners group, while adding hypertension and dyslipidemia increased the explained variation to 8% and 10 %, respectively. The risk of becoming a dual-decliner was 4-fold if hypertension was present. CONCLUSION: Older adults with concurrent decline in gait speed and cognition represent a group at the highest risk of progression to dementia. These dual-decliners have a distinct phenotype with a higher prevalence of hypertension, a potentially treatable condition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".