MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200571068 · doi:10.2196/34688

Island Study Linking Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease (ISLAND) Targeting Dementia Risk Reduction: Protocol for a Prospective Web-Based Cohort Study

2021· article· en· W4200571068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Larissa Bartlett, Kathleen Doherty, Maree Farrow, Sarang Kim, Edward Hill, Anna E. King, Jane Alty, Claire Eccleston, Alex Kitsos, Aidan Bindoff, James C. Vickers

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineGerontologyContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionCohortPopulationCognitive declineCohort studyDiseaseEnvironmental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Up to 40% of incident dementia is considered attributable to behavioral and lifestyle factors. Given the current lack of medical treatments and the projected increase in dementia prevalence, a focus on prevention through risk reduction is needed. OBJECTIVE: We aim to increase dementia risk knowledge and promote changes in dementia risk behaviors at individual and population levels. METHODS: The Island Study Linking Aging and Neurodegenerative Disease (ISLAND) is a long-term prospective, web-based cohort study with nested interventions that will be conducted over a 10-year period. Target participants (n=10,000) reside in Tasmania and are aged 50 years or over. Survey data on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to modifiable dementia risk factors will be collected annually. After each survey wave, participants will be provided with a personalized dementia risk profile containing guidelines for reducing risk across 9 behavioral and lifestyle domains and with opportunities to engage in educational and behavioral interventions targeting risk reduction. Survey data will be modeled longitudinally with intervention engagement indices, cognitive function indices, and blood-based biomarkers, to measure change in risk over time. RESULTS: In the initial 12 months (October 2019 to October 2020), 6410 participants have provided baseline data. The study is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment targets are feasible and efforts are ongoing to achieve a representative sample. Findings will inform future public health dementia risk reduction initiatives by showing whether, when, and how dementia risk can be lowered through educational and behavioral interventions, delivered in an uncontrolled real-world context. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34688.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.016

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.404 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207