Duration of Reproductive Period and Risk of Transitioning to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decreasing estrogen levels have been hypothesized to be associated with increased risk of dementia, yet the current literature reveals conflicting results. This study aimed to determine whether a longer reproductive period, as an indicator of longer exposure to endogenous estrogens, is associated with risk of transitioning to MCI and dementia. Women 65 and over (N=1507) from the Rush Memory and Aging Project met eligibility for the current analysis. The average length of reproductive period (menopause age minus menarche age) was 35 years (range=16-68 years), and 64% had natural menopause. Multistate survival modeling (MSM) was used to estimate the influence of reproductive period on risk of transitioning through cognitive states including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and clinically diagnosed dementia, as well as death. Multinomial regression models estimated total and cognitively unimpaired life expectancies based on the transition probabilities estimated by the MSM. Results suggest that women with more reproductive years were less likely to transition from no cognitive impairment (NCI) to MCI, and were more likely to return to NCI from MCI. Analyses also suggest two additional years free of cognitive impairment for women with 45 vs 25 years of reproduction, though reproduction period did not significantly impact overall life expectancy. This study suggests that the number of years of reproductive duration is not associated with the transition to dementia, but is possibly associated with delayed cognitive decline, reduced risk of MCI, increased likelihood of returning to NCI from MCI, and increased lifespan free of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".