Additional file 1 of Male- and female-specific reproductive risk factors across the lifespan for dementia or cognitive decline: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Appendix A. Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale-cohort studies. Appendix B. Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale-case control studies. Appendix C. Quality assessment according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale of cohort studies and case–control studies. Appendix D. Grading approaches used to assess the credibility of meta-analysis. Appendix E. Characteristics of included studies. Appendix F. Measurement of the outcomes on included studies. Appendix G. Characteristics of studies with cognitive decline, dementia, and AD. Appendix H. Results of dose–response analysis between certain factors and relative risks of dementia or cognitive decline. Appendix I. Results of subgroup analysis on ADT. Appendix J. Detailed GRADE score on credibility of the meta-analysis on dementia or cognitive decline. Appendix K. Results of systemic review. Appendix L. Results of index S divergence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.814 | 0.038 |
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".