The adverse effect of modifiable dementia risk factors on cognition amplifies across the adult lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Reversible lifestyle behaviors (modifiable risk factors) can reduce dementia risk by 40%, but their prevalence and association with cognition throughout the adult lifespan is less well understood. Methods The associations between the number of modifiable risk factors for dementia (low education, hypertension, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, alcohol or substance abuse, diabetes, smoking, and depression) and cognition were examined in an online sample ( N = 22,117, ages 18–89). Findings Older adults (ages 66–89) had more risk factors than middle‐aged (ages 45–65) and younger adults (ages 18–44). Polynomial regression revealed that each additional risk factor was associated with lower cognitive performance (equivalent to 3 years of aging), with a larger association as age increased. People with no risk factors in their forties to seventies showed similar cognitive performance to people 10 or 20 years younger with many risk factors. Interpretation Modifiable dementia risk factors amplify lifespan age differences in cognitive performance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".