MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210269434 · doi:10.1159/000521547

Cardiometabolic and Vascular Disease Factors and Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia

2022· article· en· W4210269434 on OpenAlexaff
Yanxia Lu, Tamàs Fülöp, Xinyi Gwee, Tih Shih Lee, Wee Shiong Lim, Mei Sian Chong, Philip Yap, Keng Bee Yap, Fang Pan, Tze Pin Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusCognitive declineVascular dementiaConfoundingDyslipidemiaOdds ratioDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is empirical evidence that cardiovascular risk factors and vascular pathology contribute to cognitive impairment and dementia. METHODS: We profiled cardiometabolic and vascular disease (CMVD) and CMVD burden in community-living older adults in the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Study cohort and examined the association of CMVD risk markers with the prevalence and incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia from a median 3.8 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Prevalent MCI and dementia, compared with normal cognition, was associated with higher proportions of persons with any CMVD, hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, or stroke. Diabetes, stroke, and the number of CMVD risk markers remained significantly associated with dementia or MCI after adjusting for age, sex, formal education level, APOE-ε4 genotype, and level of physical, social, or productive activities, with odds ratios ranging from 1.3 to 5.7. Among cognitively normal participants who were followed up, any CMVD risk factor, dyslipidemia, diabetes, or heart failure at baseline predicted incident MCI or its progression to dementia after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Older adults with higher burden of CMVD, driven especially by diabetes, are likely to increase the risk of prevalent and incident MCI and dementia.

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 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207