Protective effect of adult vaccination on the development of dementias: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Dementias currently impose a significant burden in terms of morbidity, mortality, socio-economic costs, and human suffering. Several studies have indicated that certain infectious diseases may increase the risk of dementia. Additionally, research has suggested that adult vaccines may help to prevent dementia. This systematic review looks into the possible association between adult vaccines and dementia in studies published between 2016 and April 2024. Development A search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to assess the potential association between adult vaccines and dementia in adults aged 50 and above. Quality and potential bias were evaluated using the revised Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) scale, the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, and the Risk-of-bias in Studies of Temporal Trends (ROBITT) tool. Fifteen out of the 16 selected studies showed a high degree of uniformity in terms of vaccinated adults having lower rates of dementia than unvaccinated adults. The observed risk reduction ranged from 4% to 50% (relative risk measures). The influenza vaccine has been the subject of the most extensive research, with 10 of the 16 studies focusing on it. Five studies demonstrated a dose–response relationship, indicating that a higher number of vaccines per patient is associated with a lower risk of dementia. Only one of the selected studies found an association between vaccination of adults and an increased risk of dementia. Conclusions The studies examined provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that adult vaccination may have a protective effect against the development of dementia. However, further molecular biology and pathophysiology studies are required to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and confirm the plausibility of this hypothesis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".