Sleep apnea and the risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep apnea (SA) is potentially a modifiable risk factor for dementia. However, its associations to specific aetiologies of dementia remain uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies investigating the association between sleep apnea and specific aetiologies of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Lewy body dementia (LBD), vascular dementia (VaD), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) was performed. The use of biomarkers to support clinical diagnoses in eligible studies was collected. Eleven studies were included, comprising 1,333,424 patients. Patients with sleep apnea had an increased risk of developing any type of neurocognitive disorder (HR: 1.43 [95% CI 1.26-1.62]), Alzheimer's disease (HR: 1.28 [95% CI 1.16-1.41]), and Parkinson's disease (HR: 1.54 [95% CI 1.30-1.84]). No statistically significant association was found for vascular dementia. One study reported a two-fold increased risk for Lewy body dementia (HR: 2.06 [95% CI 1.45-2.91]). No studies investigated the risk for frontotemporal dementia and none of the studies reported results pertaining to biomarkers. Sleep apnea is associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia, particularly for Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, but not for vascular dementia. Future studies should look at the impact of sleep apnea on specific dementia biomarkers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it