Traumatic life events and risk for dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the association between traumatic life events (TLE) and dementia risk. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: APA, PsychINFO, Embase and MEDLINE from their inception to 29.05.21 and updated on 20.04.22. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Original research articles published in peer reviewed journals examining the association between TLE and all cause dementia in individuals aged 60 and over. Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We conducted a generic inverse variance random effects meta-analysis to provide an overall estimate of TLE impact on dementia risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk, odds and hazards ratios relating to dementia risk. RESULTS: Initially, 3,487 studies were retrieved in the search and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis with data being used from 276,570 participants. TLE were associated with increased dementia risk. Trauma in general had a pooled HR of 1.21, (95% CI 1.03, 1.43, P = 0.0001). War/ Holocaust trauma and childhood trauma were also associated with increased dementia risk (HR = 1.28 (95% CI 1.01-1.63, P = 0.02) and HR = 1.76 (95% CI 1.17-2.64, P = 0.007) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We have found an association between TLE and dementia risk. Future research exploring the dimensions of TLE and individual level factors are needed to better understand the relationship between TLE and dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021253090.
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 | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".