The Many Faces of Dementia in Canada: Findings from the Landmark Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background With the rapidly increasing size of the dementia population, it is important to get a better understanding of the similarities and differences that are found across the people living with dementia. This work expands on the first report from the Landmark Study and takes a closer look at the many faces of dementia in Canada by highlighting some of the diversity that is found within the national projections for dementia. Method Using the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis’s socio‐economic statistical analysis platform, a simulation model was developed using demographic characteristics and risk factors for dementia to forecast the numbers of people living with dementia in Canada from 2020‐2050. Here, we will examine findings related to sex, Indigenous Peoples, ethnic origins, and young‐onset dementia. Result In 2020, 61.3% of dementia diagnoses were in females and this sex ratio is projected to stay relatively constant over the three decades. By 2050, 1.08 million females and 637,000 males are projected to be living with dementia. For Indigenous Peoples of Canada, dementia numbers are estimated to increase by 273% (2020: 10,800; 2050: 40,300). By 2050, the ethnic background of people living with dementia will be quite different than today. People of Asian origin will increase from 8% of people living with dementia in 2020 to 24% by 2050. The changes are driven both by future immigration, and by people who have already immigrated to Canada in the past few decades. While most cases of dementia are found in older age groups, by 2050, the Landmark Study projects that there could be over 40,000 people under the age of 65 living with dementia in Canada, compared to the 28,000 in 2020. Conclusion This study illustrates the changing landscape of dementia in Canada. The characteristics examined in this study, as well as other distinctions between people, can profoundly affect the way in which dementia is experienced and their care needs. When it comes to these differences, we propose that the best way forward is to examine them, generate evidence, listen closely to the recommendations that come from these communities, and collectively advocate for systemic change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".