Alcohol use, dementia risk, and sex: a systematic review and assessment of alcohol-attributable dementia cases in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-risk alcohol use is an established modifiable risk factor for dementia. However, prior reviews have not addressed sex differences in alcohol-related dementia risk. In this systematic review, we take a sex-specific perspective towards the alcohol-dementia link, taking into account the age of dementia onset. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for original cohort or case-control studies investigating the association between alcohol use and dementia. Two restrictions were considered: First, studies had to report results stratified by sex. Second, given the fact that the age at dementia onset seems to affect the alcohol-dementia link, studies were required to distinguish between early-onset and late-onset dementia (cut-off: 65 years). Additionally, the contribution of alcohol to dementia incidence was quantified for a set of 33 European countries for the year 2019. RESULTS: We reviewed 3,157 reports, of which 7 publications were finally included and summarised narratively. A lower dementia risk when drinking alcohol infrequent or at moderate levels was found in men (three studies) and women (four studies). High-risk use and alcohol use disorders increased the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia, particularly early-onset dementia. Estimating the alcohol-attributable share of incident dementia cases revealed that 3.2% and 7.8% of incident dementia cases were estimated to be attributable to high-risk alcohol use (at least 24 g of pure alcohol per day) in 45-to-64-year-old women and men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Research to date has paid little attention to the sex-specific link of alcohol and dementia. In the absence of sex-specific research, the established recommendations on high-risk alcohol use should be employed to communicate the alcohol-attributable dementia risk.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".