Metabolic syndrome and risk of incident all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Metabolic syndrome (MetS) comprises several co-occurring vascular and cardiometabolic characteristics and might represent a novel modifiable risk factor for dementia, though findings remain inconsistent. To clarify this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies investigating the association between MetS with risk of incident all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. Methods We searched Medline, Embase and PsycINFO databases (from inception to Feb 19th, 2024) for longitudinal cohort studies investigating the association of MetS with incident all-cause dementia or key subtypes, including Alzheimer’s, vascular, Lewy Body or other dementias. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled hazard ratios (pHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Results Of 4,719 studies identified, fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria. These studies combined included 4,345,741 participants who were initially free of dementia. Pooled estimates showed that, compared to participants with no MetS, those with MetS had a significantly greater risk of incident all-cause dementia (4,307,830 participants, 27,708 cases, pHR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.08–1.15, I 2 = 12.0%). No significant association was observed for incident Alzheimer’s disease (4,109,436 participants, 14,890 cases, pHR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.72–1.15, I 2 : 41.0%) or vascular dementia (4,109,436 participants, 2,642 cases, pHR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.96–2.06, I 2 : 59.0%). Associations remained similar in subgroup analyses restricted to studies reporting results for those aged 65 + years: all-cause dementia (pHR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00-1.16, I 2 : 15.0%), Alzheimer’s disease (pHR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.65–1.11, I 2 : 0.0%), and vascular dementia (pHR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.71–3.39, I 2 : 75.0%). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that MetS may be an important risk factor for developing dementia, and represent a potential target for prevention. Further studies are needed to understand the influence of MetS on specific dementia subtypes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".