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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".