Poster Abstracts from the 34th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Canadian Geriatrics Society, Edmonton, April 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Information:Limited research has suggested that rural residents are at increased risk of dementia.Objective: The objective of this study is to determine if rural residence is associated with dementia using both crosssectional and prospective analyses. Methods:In 1991, 1763 community-dwelling adults aged 65+ participated in the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging (MSHA), which sampled all regions of the province of Manitoba.Baseline measures included age, gender, years of education, the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), and rural/urban status.Rural was defined as a census subdivision with a population <20,000 and urban as 20,000+.Dementia was diagnosed in participants with a 3MS score <78 and clinical examination applying DSM-IIIR criteria at baseline and at follow-up five years later.All other participants were categorized as not demented.Two analyses were conducted: 1) a cross-sectional analysis (N=1,763), and 2) a prospective analysis of those who did not have dementia at time 1, and who survived to time 2 (N=1,079).Results: Forty per cent (n=703) of participants were rural residents.Participants in urban areas had a mean 3MS score of 86.1 vs. 84.2 in rural areas (p = .001).Mean number of years of education in urban areas was 10.0 vs. 8.3 in rural areas (p < .001).In multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for age, gender, and education, living in a rural area was not significantly associated with dementia in either cross-sectional (adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=1.03,95% CI=0.59-1.81)or prospective analyses (AOR=0.78;95% CI=0.51-1.21). Conclusion:Rural residents had significantly lower educational attainment and 3MS scores than urban residents.However, rural residence was not associated with dementia in either cross-sectional or prospective analyses.Further study into heterogeneity between rural areas is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.468 | 0.104 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".