Dementia risk reduction: why haven't the pharmacological risk reduction trials worked? An in‐depth exploration of seven established risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the leading health and lifestyle factors for the risk of incident dementia and Alzheimer's disease has yet to translate to risk reduction. To understand why, we examined the discrepancies between observational and clinical trial evidence for seven modifiable risk factors: type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, estrogens, inflammation, omega-3 fatty acids, and hyperhomocysteinemia. Sample heterogeneity and paucity of intervention details (dose, timing, formulation) were common themes. Epidemiological evidence is more mature for some interventions (eg, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) than others. Trial data are promising for anti-hypertensives and B vitamin supplementation. Taken together, these risk factors highlight a future need for more targeted sample selection in clinical trials, a better understanding of interventions, and deeper analysis of existing data.
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 | 0.429 | 0.577 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".