MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413794921 · doi:10.1111/jgs.70072

Prevalence and Risk of Dementia Among Adults Who Have Experienced Homelessness, a Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413794921 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Hoang, Yu Qing Huang, Mohammad Jay, Vivian Berg, Courtney van Ballegooie, Christina Reppas‐Rindlisbacher, Natasha E. Lane, Jillian Alston, Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesEsri (Canada)St. Michael's HospitalSinai Health SystemEntomological Society of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDementiaMedicineCINAHLPsycINFOMeta-analysisHazard ratioIncidence (geometry)MEDLINEGerontologyRelative riskPsychiatryConfidence intervalPsychological interventionInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Understanding the prevalence and risk of dementia in homeless adults has important implications for ensuring appropriate resources are directed towards dementia prevention and healthy aging. We aimed to estimate the: (1) prevalence and (2) risk of dementia among homeless adults, and (3) risk of homelessness in adults experiencing dementia. Methods A systematic search was completed in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Social Works Abstracts, and the gray literature from inception to September 26, 2024. Studies investigating the prevalence of dementia among individuals experiencing homelessness aged 18 years or older were included. Title, abstract, and full text screening, extraction, and risk of bias assessments were completed in duplicate. Random effects meta‐analysis using generalized linear mixed models was used to estimate the prevalence of dementia. For the risk and incidence of dementia, we meta‐analyzed the risk and hazards of dementia comparing homeless to housed individuals. Results A total of 1585 citations were retrieved, with 102 studies undergoing full‐text review. Thirty‐six studies were included in the final review (504,766 individuals experiencing homelessness, with the following weighted by sample size: mean age 63.08, female percentage 10.64). The prevalence of dementia was 6.81% (95% CI: 4.49, 10.19%, I 2 = 99.7%). Among those who experienced homelessness compared to housed individuals, the risk ratio for dementia was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.52, 2.03, I 2 = 99.7%), and the incidence (hazard ratio) for dementia was 1.54 (0.52, 4.50, I 2 = 98.0%). One study showed that a younger age was associated with homelessness among adults with dementia. Conclusions This systematic review and meta‐analysis suggests that homeless individuals have a dementia prevalence higher than population‐based studies of housed adults of a similar age, where the estimated prevalence is under 3%. Research on models of care aimed at reducing homelessness in those experiencing dementia is needed. Trial Registration PROSPERO: CRD42024595047

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.039
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→