Prevalence and risk of cognitive impairment among patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma, a prevalent chronic respiratory condition, is hypothesized to influence cognitive health; however, the precise nature of this association remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the prevalence and risk of cognitive impairment in individuals with asthma. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, spanning publications up to December 25, 2023. This search aimed to identify studies that assessed cognitive impairment in patients with asthma. We used the random effects model in the R v4.3 software for the meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence and risk of cognitive decline, including dementia and Alzheimer's disease, among asthma patients. To ensure robustness and validity, the quality of the studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, of these 10 were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of cognitive impairment in patients with asthma was 16.3%. The analysis also revealed an increased hazard ratio of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [1.09; 1.84]) for cognitive impairment in patients with asthma compared to the control group (individuals without asthma). Significant heterogeneity and publication bias were observed across the studies. The results underscored the substantial correlation between asthma and heightened risks of cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. CONCLUSION: This review found a notable association between asthma and an increased risk of cognitive decline, including dementia and Alzheimer's disease. These findings highlight the importance of integrating cognitive health assessments into asthma care. Further research is required to understand this relationship and develop effective treatments. Emphasizing a holistic approach to asthma management, these findings highlight the need to consider both respiratory and cognitive health for comprehensive patient care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".