MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205477285 · doi:10.1002/alz.052905

Correlates of subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in a Canadian sample of midlife and older adults

2021· article· en· W4205477285 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shawna Hopper, Nicole G. Hammond, Arne Stinchcombe

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOddsOdds ratioLogistic regressionCognitionCognitive declineGerontologyDiseaseInternal medicineDemographyPsychiatryDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), a self‐perceived decline in memory among otherwise cognitively healthy older adults, has been linked to increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). It is believed that SCD may be a first symptomatic expression of preclinical AD. Identification of SCD precursors may allow for early identification and implementation of intervention to prevent cognitive decline. Method Using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), a national study of over 50,000 participants ages 45‐85 at baseline, we sought to identify potential risk and protective factors for SCD. Participants with diagnosed AD at baseline were excluded. Exposures were measured at baseline and SCD was measured three years later, at first follow‐up, with the question: “Do you feel like your memory is becoming worse?”. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate odds of SCD (analytic sample: n=36,885). Result Results indicated that 56.1% participants reported SCD. Participants with a post‐secondary education had increased odds of SCD compared to those with less than a secondary school graduation (OR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.33). Hearing problems (OR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.56) and vision problems (OR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.24) were associated with increased odds of SCD. Alcohol consumption also increased the odds of SCD, with infrequent drinkers (OR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.16), regular drinkers (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.22) and frequent drinkers (OR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.25) more likely to self‐report SCD than never drinkers. Participants who consumed five or more servings of fruits/ vegetables had reduced odds of SCD (OR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.91, 0.99), when compared to those who consumed <5 servings. Compared to participants who never smoked, former smokers had increased odds of SCD (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.12), whereas current smokers had reduced odds of SCD (OR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98). Lastly, individuals with diagnosed mood and anxiety disorders had higher odds of SCD compared to those without (OR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.34, 1.50). Conclusion This study sheds light on prospective correlates of SCD in a large population‐based sample of older Canadians. Many of the factors associated with SCD may be modifiable therefore amenable to early intervention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→