MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404229310 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.3774

Frailty Trajectories Preceding Dementia in the US and UK

2024· article· en· W4404229310 on OpenAlex
David Ward, Jonny P Flint, Thomas J. Littlejohns, Isabelle F. Foote, Marco Canevelli, Lindsay Wallace, Emily H Gordon, David J. Llewellyn, Janice M. Ranson, Ruth E. Hubbard, Kenneth Rockwood, Erwin Stolz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDementiaGerontologyPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: An accessible marker of both biological age and dementia risk is crucial to advancing dementia prevention and treatment strategies. Although frailty is a candidate for that role, the nature of the relationship between frailty and dementia is not well understood. Objective: To clarify the temporal relationship between frailty and incident dementia by investigating frailty trajectories in the years preceding dementia onset. Design, Setting, and Participants: Participant data came from 4 prospective cohort studies: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, the Health and Retirement Study, the Rush Memory and Aging Project, and the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center. Data were collected between 1997 and 2024 and were analyzed from July 2023 to August 2024. The settings were retirement communities, national-level surveys, and a multiclinic-based cohort. Included individuals were 60 years or older and without cognitive impairment at baseline. Included individuals also had data on age, sex, education level, and ethnicity and a frailty index score calculated at baseline. Exposure: Frailty was the main exposure, with participants' degrees of frailty quantified using retrospectively calculated frailty index scores. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident all-cause dementia ascertained through physician-derived diagnoses, self- and informant-report, and estimated classifications based on combinations of cognitive tests. Results: The participant number before exclusions was 87 737. After exclusions, data from 29 849 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.6 [7.7] years; 18 369 female [62%]; 257 963 person-years of follow-up; 3154 cases of incident dementia) were analyzed. Bayesian generalized linear mixed regression models revealed accelerations in frailty trajectories 4 to 9 years before incident dementia. Overall, frailty was positively associated with dementia risk (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs] ranged from 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.24 to 1.73; 95% CI, 1.57-1.92). This association held among participants whose time between frailty measurement and incident dementia exceeded the identified acceleration period (aHRs ranged from 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.23 to 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.80). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that frailty measurements may be used to identify high-risk population groups for preferential enrolment into clinical trials for dementia prevention and treatment. Frailty itself may represent a useful upstream target for behavioral and societal approaches to dementia prevention.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it