Adverse childhood experiences and risk of late-life dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) refer to distressing events before age 18 that can lead to potential mental and physical health consequences. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between ACEs and the risk of dementia in elderly adults who experienced ACEs during childhood, addressing the existing inconsistencies and methodological variations. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was employed across key databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase) to identify relevant articles. Our primary outcome was ACEs-dementia risk, and our secondary outcome was mild cognitive impairment risk. A quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE. A random-effects model was utilized to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity and assess the reliability of the results. RESULTS: Out of 1,376 screened papers, nine studies were included. The studies consisted of two case-control, one prospective cohort, and six retrospective cohort studies conducted in the UK, France, USA, China, and Spain. Five studies were of good methodological quality according to the NOS. according to the GRADE, all outcomes were classified as very low or low quality of evidence. A significant association was observed between ACEs and dementia risk (OR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.20, 1.52; P = 0.00001) and mild cognitive impairment risk (OR = 1.28; 95% CI 0.63, 2.62; P = 0.49). A meta-analysis by type of adversity revealed significant results for the maltreatment subgroup(OR = 1.30; 95% CI 0.07-1.58; P = 0.007; I² = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on the dementia definition revealed no between-subgroup difference (P = 0.71) between tool-based and register/criteria-based subgroups. No possibility of Publication bias was observed upon inspection of the funnel plot. CONCLUSION: Adverse childhood experiences may be associated with an increased risk of dementia. However, caution is warranted in interpreting these results due to the limited number of studies. Larger high-quality studies investigating the association between ACEs and dementia risk are needed to confirm the reliability of our results.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".