Potential for reducing dementia risk: association of the CAIDE score with additional lifestyle components from the LIBRA score in a population at high risk of dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Various dementia risk scores exist that assess different factors. We investigated the association between the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE) score and modifiable risk factors in the Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) score in a German population at high risk of Alzheimer's disease. METHOD: Baseline data of 807 participants of AgeWell.de (mean age: 68.8 years (SD = 4.9)) were analysed. Stepwise multivariable regression was used to examine the association between the CAIDE score and additional risk factors of the LIBRA score. Additionally, we examined the association between dementia risk models and cognitive performance, as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: = 0.032). Although all were classified as high risk on CAIDE, 31.5% scored ≤0 points on LIBRA, indicating a lower risk of dementia. Higher CAIDE and LIBRA scores were associated with lower cognitive performance. CONCLUSION: Regular cognitive activities and increased fruit and vegetable intake were associated with lower CAIDE scores. Different participants are classified as being at-risk based on the dementia risk score used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".