Association between Cardiovascular Diseases and Dementia among various age groups: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The link between cardiovascular (CV) risk factors or diseases and dementia is documented. There is conflicting evidence whether age moderates the association. We need to study this gap so that research and clinical initiatives target appropriate age groups. A cohort of 320,630 adult patients without dementia was built using Quebec healthcare databases (1998–2010). The CV risk factors were hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia, while diseases included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), chronic heart failure (HF), and atrial fibrillation (AF). Dementia risk and CV risk factors or diseases were assessed using incidence rate ratios and Cox regression across age groups. The cohort presented by mainly female sex (67.7%) and mean age of 74.1 years. Incident rate of dementia increased with age, ranging from 4.1 to 93.5 per 1,000 person-years. Diabetes, stroke, HF and AF were significantly associated with dementia risk, hazard ratios ranged from 1.08 to 3.54. The strength of association decreased in advanced age for diabetes, stroke and HF. The results suggest that prevention of diabetes, stroke, HF and AF are crucial to mitigate dementia risk. The pathophysiology of dementia in younger and older populations seems to differ, with less impact of CV risk factors in advanced age.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".