MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313420004 · doi:10.1016/j.ibneur.2022.12.009

Do cerebral microbleeds increase the risk of dementia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4313420004 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIBRO Neuroscience Reports · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMeta-analysisMedicineHazard ratioSystematic reviewRelative riskInternal medicinePopulationMEDLINEConfidence intervalDiseaseEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it