Sex differences in risk factors, burden, and outcomes of cerebrovascular disease in Alzheimer's disease populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are associated with cognitive decline and progression to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. It remains unclear if sex differences influence WMH progression or the relationship between WMH and cognition. METHODS: Linear mixed models examined the relationship between risk factors, WMHs, and cognition in males and females. RESULTS: Males exhibited increased WMH progression in occipital, but lower progression in frontal, total, and deep than females. For males, history of hypertension was the strongest contributor, while in females, the vascular composite was the strongest contributor to WMH burden. WMH burden was more strongly associated with decreases in global cognition, executive functioning, memory, and functional activities in females than males. DISCUSSION: Controlling vascular risk factors may reduce WMH in both males and females. For males, targeting hypertension may be most important to reduce WMHs. The results have implications for therapies/interventions targeting cerebrovascular pathology and subsequent cognitive decline. HIGHLIGHTS: Hypertension is the main vascular risk factor associated with WMH in males A combination of vascular risk factors contributes to WMH burden in females Only small WMH burden differences were observed between sexes Females' cognition was more negatively impacted by WMH burden than males Females with WMHs may have less resilience to future pathology.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".