Do cerebral microbleeds increase the risk of dementia? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dementia is a neurological disorder that commonly affects the elderly. Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are small, tiny lesions of the cerebral blood vessels and have been suggested as a possible risk factor for dementia. However, data about the association between CMBs and dementia risk are inconsistent and inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between CMBs and dementia and highlight the possible explanations. Methods: We followed the standard PRISMA statement and the Cochrane Handbook guidelines to conduct this study. First, we searched medical electronic databases for relevant articles. Then, we screened the retrieved articles for eligibility, extracted the relevant data, and appraised the methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Finally, the extracted data were pooled as risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) in the random-effects meta-analysis model using the Review Manager software. Results: We included nine studies with 14,221 participants and follow-up periods > 18 months. Overall, CMBs significantly increased the risk of developing dementia (RR 1.84, 95% CI [1.27-2.65]). This association was significant in the subgroups of studies on high-risk populations (RR 2.00, 95% CI [1.41-2.83], n = 1657 participants) and those in the general population (RR 2.30, 95% CI [1.25-4.26], n = 12,087 participants) but not in the memory clinic patients. Further, CMBs increased the risk of progressing to incident dementia over time (HR 2, 95% CI [1.54-2.61]). Conclusion: Individuals with CMBs have twice the risk of developing dementia or progressing to MCI than those without CMBs. The detection of CMBs will help identify the population at higher risk of developing dementia. Physicians should educate individuals with CMBs and their families on the possibility of progressing to dementia or MCI. Regular cognitive assessments, cognitive training, lifestyle modifications, and controlling other dementia risk factors are recommended for individuals with CMBs to decrease the risk of cognitive decline and dementia development.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".