Pattern of cognitive impairment among community-dwelling elderly in Egypt and its relation to socioeconomic status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline is one of the aging health problems that strongly affects daily functioning and quality of life of older adults and threatens their independence. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and pattern of cognitive impairment (CI) among community-dwelling elderly in Egypt and the contribution of socioeconomic status to inequality in cognitive impairment. METHODS: A cross-sectional study involved 470 community-dwelling elderly aged 60 years or older living in Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt. Subjects were recruited from home visits, geriatric clubs, and outpatient clinics. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment tools (MoCA & MoCA-B) were used to assess the prevalence of cognitive impairment, Hachinski ischemic score (HIS) to investigate the type of cognitive impairment, Ain Shams Cognitive Assessment (ASCA) tool to assess the pattern of specific cognitive domain affection, and an Egyptian socioeconomic status (SES) scale to classify the SES of the study participants. RESULTS: The prevalence of cognitive impairment was 50.2% distributed as 37.7% for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 12.5% for dementia. The most common type of cognitive impairment was the degenerative type (47.9%). Pattern of specific domain affection among cognitively impaired subjects ranged from 94% for visuospatial function to 12.7% for abstraction. Cognitive impairment was significantly higher with increasing age, female sex, marital status (single or widow), low education, higher number of comorbidities, and positive family history of cognitive impairment (p < 0.001). Also, cognitive impairment was concentrated mainly among participants with low socioeconomic score (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In Egypt, cognitive impairment is significantly prevalent and concentrated among those who are in low socioeconomic status. Patients with mild CI were more than those with dementia, and the most common type of CI was the degenerative type. Increasing educational level of low SES population and improving their access to healthcare services are highly recommended to improve the inequity of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".