Impact of dual sensory impairment on the risk of incident dementia: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Strong evidence supports the importance of potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, with sensory loss, particularly visual and hearing impairment, being prominent among them. While single sensory impairment has been widely investigated, the influence of concomitant visual and hearing impairment is still not clear. Thus, in this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the risk of developing all-cause dementia due to dual sensory (visual and hearing) impairment and to comprehensively explore possible sources of heterogeneity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 statement and has been registered on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews. Our literature search will include two databases: MEDLINE-PubMed and Embase. The search strategy will consist of terms tailored for each database. We will include peer-reviewed longitudinal cohort studies reporting HRs. Screening and selection of articles will be performed independently by at least two reviewers using the Covidence systematic review manager. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus. Data will be collected on study design, location, study setting, follow-up years, baseline demographics, sensory impairment and dementia diagnosis ascertainment, and number of adjusted covariates. The quality of the included studies will be evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. If meta-analysis is possible, we will perform DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models of HRs using the most adjusted model from each study. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions are planned as a function of study setting, geographical location, sensory impairment and dementia diagnosis ascertainment, follow-up years and number of adjusted covariates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because this study involves data already published by other authors. Our findings will be disseminated by a peer-reviewed publication and presentations at relevant scientific conferences. The results will support the understanding of dementia's modifiable risk factors and may motivate the development of screening interventions to prevent dementia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023493401.
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 | 0.094 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.007 |
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".