6ER-003 Influenza vaccination and its association with dementia risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Importance Influenza vaccination is not only effective in preventing influenza but may also provide protection against other diseases, including dementia. While previous studies have explored the relationship between influenza vaccination and dementia, the association in populations with specific underlying conditions remains unclear. Aim and Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether influenza vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of dementia, particularly in individuals with specific diseases. Material and Methods We systematically searched the relevant studies via MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 July 2024, using keywords and MeSH/Emtree terms related to dementia and influenza vaccination. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Population: Adults, (2) Exposure: Influenza vaccination, (3) Controls: No influenza vaccination, (3) Outcome: Risk estimates of dementia diagnosis, and (4) Study design: Cohort studies. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third author. The quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Dementia risk data were pooled using a random effects model, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the primary outcome measure. Results Out of 447 studies identified, seven met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 8,265,275 participants (52.8% female). Six out of the seven included studies were judged to have a low-risk of bias. Pooled analysis indicated that influenza vaccination is associated with a lower risk of all-cause dementia (HR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66–0.85). This association was observed both in the general population (HR: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81–0.98) and in those with specific diseases, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidaemia (HR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63–0.69). Regarding vaccination doses, individuals receiving four or more doses demonstrated a significant reduction in dementia risk (e.g., HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.35–0.50). In terms of dementia subtypes, influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of vascular dementia (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.47–0.75), but not with Alzheimer’s disease (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64–1.19). Conclusion and Relevance Influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, particularly vascular dementia, and in populations with specific underlying conditions. These findings highlighted the potential of vaccination as a valuable strategy for dementia prevention in high-risk groups. References and/or Acknowledgements Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".