Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of mild and major neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), also referred to as mild cognitive impairment and dementia, is rising globally. The prevention of NCDs is a major global public health interest. We sought to synthesize the literature on potentially modifiable risk factors for NCDs. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review using a systematic search across multiple databases to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible reviews examined potentially modifiable risk factors for mild or major NCDs. We used a random-effects multi-level meta-analytic approach to synthesize risk ratios for each risk factor while accounting for overlap in the reviews. We further examined risk factors for major NCD due to two common etiologies: Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. RESULTS: A total of 45 reviews with 212 meta-analyses were synthesized. We identified fourteen broadly defined modifiable risk factors that were significantly associated with these disorders: alcohol consumption, body weight, depression, diabetes mellitus, diet, hypertension, less education, physical inactivity, sensory loss, sleep disturbance, smoking, social isolation, traumatic brain injury, and vitamin D deficiency. All 14 factors were associated with the risk of major NCD, and five were associated with mild NCD. We found considerably less research for vascular dementia and mild NCD. CONCLUSION: Our review quantifies the risk associated with 14 potentially modifiable risk factors for mild and major NCDs, including several factors infrequently included in dementia action plans. Prevention strategies should consider approaches that reduce the incidence and severity of these risk factors through health promotion, identification, and early management.
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 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".