MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205767353 · doi:10.1002/alz.052726

Risk factors and association of cognitive impairment among older adults with concurrent vision and hearing impairment: A scoping study

2021· article· en· W4205767353 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-CentreMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOContext (archaeology)MedicinePopulationGerontologyVisual impairmentMEDLINEPsychological interventionClinical psychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The concurrent loss of vision and hearing, termed dual sensory impairment (DSI), can have a significant impact on one’s functioning. Evidence is emerging on the prevalence of DSI in the older population, including those with cognitive impairment (CI). In the context of an ageing population with increasing prevalence of DSI, we aimed to synthesize existing evidence on the association of CI with DSI and identify risk factors for the development of CI in older adults with DSI, establishing its relevance to primary prevention. Method The scoping review was performed using Arskey and O’Malley’s framework (2005). In June 2020, eleven scientific databases (CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Mednar, OAIster, OpenGrey, PsycEXTRA, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and WorldWideScience) were searched using index terms and keywords relating to CI and DSI. To be included, studies had to be empirical, peer‐reviewed, had older adults with DSI as the focal population, and have explored the concept of CI as an impairment of one or more cognitive domains, such as memory, attention, or executive functions. The screening of the retrieved studies was completed using Covidence, and relevant data were extracted using an a priori data extraction tool. Result Out of 11,595 identified sources, 56 articles were included. Twelve studies reported the prevalence of CI in older adults with DSI, while 20 reported risk factors for CI in older adults that could be applied to older adults with DSI as well, such as depression, hearing impairment, and social isolation. Thirteen studies presented DSI alone as a risk factor for CI in older people. Seven studies reported other risk factors for CI in older adults with DSI, such as non‐sensory comorbidities, illiteracy, physical inactivity, and gender. Conclusion Our review indicates that further population‐based longitudinal research is needed to explore the association between CI and DSI and identify whether there are risk factors that are unique for CI among older adults with DSI. With the prevalence of DSI increasing in the older population, robust evidence is needed to inform the recommendations regarding screening, assessment and management of CI in older adults with DSI.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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