Social class and the risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective longitudinal studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The association between belonging to a disadvantaged socio-economic status or social class and health outcomes has been consistently documented during recent decades. However, a meta-analysis quantifying the association between belonging to a lower social class and the risk of dementia has yet to be performed. In the present work, we sought to summarise the results of prospective, longitudinal studies on this topic. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective, longitudinal studies measuring the association between indicators of social class and the risk of all-cause/Alzheimer’s dementia. The search was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and PsychInfo). Inclusion criteria for this systematic review and meta-analysis were: (a) longitudinal prospective study, (b) aged ⩾60 years at baseline, (c) issued from the general population, (d) no dementia at baseline and (e) mention of social class as exposure. Exclusion criteria were: (a) study of rare dementia types (e.g. frontotemporal dementia), (b) abstract-only papers and (c) articles without full text available. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies. We calculated the overall pooled relative risk of dementia for different social class indicators, both crude and adjusted for sex, age and the year of the cohort start. Results: Out of 4548 screened abstracts, 15 were included in the final analysis (76,561 participants, mean follow-up 6.7 years (2.4–25 years), mean age at baseline 75.1 years (70.6–82.1 years), mean percentage of women 58%). Social class was operationalised as levels of education, occupational class, income level, neighbourhood disadvantage and wealth. Education (relative risk (RR)=2.48; confidence interval (CI) 1.71–3.59) and occupational class (RR=2.09; CI 1.18–3.69) but not income (RR=1.28; CI 0.81–2.04) were significantly associated with the risk of dementia in the adjusted model. Some of the limitations of this study are the inclusion of studies predominantly conducted in high-income countries and the exclusion of social mobility in our analysis. Conclusions: We conclude that there is a significant association between belonging to a social class and the risk of dementia, with education and occupation being the most relevant indicators of social class regarding this risk. Studying the relationship between belonging to a disadvantaged social class and dementia risk might be a fruitful path to diminishing the incidence of dementia over time. However, a narrow operationalisation of social class that only includes education, occupation and income may reduce the potential for such studies to inform social policies.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".