Association of thyroid disease with risks of dementia and cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is still uncertain whether the risk of dementia and cognitive impairment is related to thyroid disease. we carried out a meta-analysis and systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021290105) on the associations between thyroid disease and the risks of dementia and cognitive impairment. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published up to August 2022. The overall relative risk (RRs) and its 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated in the random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity among studies. We tested and corrected for publication bias by funnel plot-based methods. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) scale were used to evaluate the study quality of longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies, respectively. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that hyperthyroidism (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.09-1.19) and subclinical hyperthyroidism (RR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.26-1.93) might be associated with an elevated risk for dementia, while hypothyroidism (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.80-1.08) and subclinical hypothyroidism (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.70-1.01) did not affect the risk. Discussion: Hyperthyroidism and subclinical hyperthyroidism are predictors of dementia. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, Identifier: CRD42021290105.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".