Influenza vaccination and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between influenza vaccination and a reduction in dementia was unclear with inconsistent evidence. We aimed to evaluate the association between influenza vaccination and dementia risk in the overall population and the high-risk populations for dementia, such as patients with chronic kidney syndrome (CKD), chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (COPD) and vascular disease. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 6 April 2025. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model meta-analysis was executed. RESULTS: We included eight cohort studies with 9,938,696 subjects. Except for one study, the risk of bias of all other included studies was low. Influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of incident dementia in high-risk populations for dementia, but not in the overall population (HR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86-1.01). For high-risk populations, more than one dose of influenza vaccination showed an association with a lower risk of incident dementia (2-3 doses: HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.76-0.92; ≥ 4 doses: HR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.38-0.48). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination was associated with a decreasing risk of incident dementia in a dose-response manner.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 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".