Antiplatelet therapy and incident cognitive impairment or dementia—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The benefit of antiplatelet therapy in preventing cognitive impairment or dementia is uncertain. We investigated the association between antiplatelet therapy and incident cognitive impairment or dementia in randomised clinical trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL for randomised clinical trials published from database inception through 1 February 2023. Trials that evaluated the association of antiplatelet therapy with incident cognitive impairment or dementia were included. For single-agent antiplatelet, the control group was placebo. For dual agent antiplatelet therapy, the control group was single-agent monotherapy. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to report pooled treatment effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was incident cognitive impairment or dementia. Secondary outcomes included change in cognitive test scores. RESULTS: A total of 11 randomised clinical trials were included (109,860 participants). All reported the incidence of cognitive impairment or dementia on follow-up. The mean (SD) age of trial participants was 66.2 (7.9) years. Antiplatelet therapy was not significantly associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment or dementia (11 trials; 109,860 participants) (3.49% versus 4.18% of patients over a mean trial follow-up of 5.8 years; odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]; absolute risk reduction, 0.2% [95% CI, -0.4% to 0.009%]; I2 = 0.0%). Antiplatelet therapy was not significantly associated with mean change in cognitive test scores. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, antiplatelet therapy was not significantly associated with a lower risk of incident cognitive impairment or dementia, but the CIs around this outcome do not exclude a modest preventative effect.
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 | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".