Risk factors and predictors for Lewy body dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lewy body dementia (LBD), including Parkinson’s disease dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), is a common and burdensome dementia. Determining risk factors and predictors can provide insights into pathogenesis and guide treatment efforts. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for longitudinal studies assessing risk/prodromal factors; including participants without dementia at baseline; with LBD as the outcome; with good/high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Across 167 included studies, more consistently reported factors were older age, male sex, APOEe4, GBA, changes in cognition, mood, behavior, sleep, gait/posture, speech, parkinsonism, smell loss, autonomic dysfunction, white matter disease on MRI, lower CSF amyloid β42 and higher CSF/blood neurofilament light chain. The majority focused on clinical factors preceding PDD with cohorts from North America and Europe, limiting generalizability. Further efforts with more representative cohorts are needed to better identify people at risk for LBD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".