Polypharmacy and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: A 3-year Study of DO-HEALTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between polypharmacy and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline and over 3 years in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Observational analysis of the DO-HEALTH trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged ≥70 years with good cognitive function and without major diseases at baseline. METHODS: Main exposure was polypharmacy at baseline (≥5 medications). The outcome was MCI (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] score <26), assessed at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations (GEEs) for repeated binary outcomes were used for the cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis, respectively. Minimally adjusted models included age, sex, prior fall, study site, body mass index, and education. Fully adjusted models additionally adjusted for mental health and multimorbidity. GEE models also accounted for time and DO-HEALTH treatment effects. Sensitivity analysis used a stricter MCI definition (MoCA < 24). RESULTS: A total of 2153 participants completed MoCA at baseline. Baseline MCI prevalence was higher in participants with polypharmacy compared with those with no polypharmacy (MCI < 26: 53.5% vs 46.5%; MCI < 24: 34.9% vs 17.2%). Polypharmacy was associated with greater MCI odds at baseline in the minimally adjusted models (MoCA < 26: odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.66; MoCA < 24: OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.79). Over 3 years, polypharmacy was associated with increased MCI odds in the minimally adjusted models (MoCA < 26: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.52; MoCA < 24: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.65). Notably, these associations were somewhat attenuated and nonsignificant after controlling for mental health and multimorbidity. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that MCI is more prevalent in older adults with polypharmacy compared with those without polypharmacy. Although polypharmacy was associated with MCI at baseline and over 3 years, these associations were attenuated by mental health and multimorbidity, suggesting that mental health and multimorbidity contribute to both polypharmacy and MCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".