MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184238291 · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00140-9

Mortality rates in Alzheimer's disease and non-Alzheimer's dementias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3184238291 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Dementia Research AllianceUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCanada Research ChairsKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South LondonBrain and Behavior Research FoundationDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanada Foundation for InnovationFondation Brain CanadaKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustBrightFocus FoundationGuy's and St Thomas' CharityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWeston Brain Institute
KeywordsDementiaMeta-analysisMedicineCochrane LibraryHazard ratioCohort studySystematic reviewDiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMEDLINEGerontologyConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with dementia die prematurely. Identifying differences in mortality rates between different types of dementia might aid in the development of preventive interventions for the most vulnerable populations. The aim of this study was to compare the difference in mortality rates between individuals without dementia and individuals with various types of dementia. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we did a systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 11, 2020, for cross-sectional or cohort studies that assessed mortality and survival-related outcomes among people with different types of dementia compared with people without dementia. Single-arm studies without comparison groups and autopsy studies or family studies that used a selected sample were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used by two authors (D-JL and C-SC) independently to measure the methodological quality of included studies, and two authors (F-CY and P-TT) independently extracted data. We assessed differences in all-cause mortality rate and survival time from dementia diagnosis between individuals without dementia, individuals with Alzheimer's disease, and individuals with non-Alzheimer's disease dementias. The secondary outcomes were age at death and survival time from disease onset. Random-effects meta-analyses were done. Effect sizes included hazard ratios (HRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Potential moderators, including age-associated moderators, were identified through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020198786. FINDINGS: >75%) was observed for most of the study outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Alzheimer's disease is the most common type of dementia and one of the major causes of mortality worldwide. However, the findings from the current study suggest that non-Alzheimer's disease dementias were associated with higher morality rates and shorter life expectancy than Alzheimer's disease. Developing tailored treatment and rehabilitation programmes for different types of dementia is important for mental health providers, patients, and their families. FUNDING: None.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it