Does pneumonia increase the risk of dementia and cognitive decline? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between pneumonia and elevated risk of dementia and cognitive decline is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the link between pneumonia and the subsequent risk of developing dementia. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) databases were searched for studies, published up to 29 February 2024. Eligible studies provided data on adult patients diagnosed with pneumonia and reported outcomes related to dementia or cognitive decline. Quality of observational studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were done based on age, geography, study design and pneumonia type. Ten studies were included, encompassing a diverse population sample. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant correlation between pneumonia and increased risk of dementia (HR = 1.738; 95% CI: 1.358 to 2.225), with substantial heterogeneity across the studies (I2 = 97.1%). Subgroup analysis indicated that the association was more pronounced in older adults and varied slightly by region and study design. The risk did not significantly differ between bacterial and non-specific pneumonia types. This meta-analysis suggests that pneumonia is associated with a significantly higher risk of developing dementia. These findings underscore the need for diligent monitoring and preventive strategies for patients recovering from pneumonia, particularly among the elderly, to mitigate potential cognitive decline. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024520631.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".