Modifiable risk factors for dementia among individuals of a SUS clinical laboratory in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modifiable risk factors for dementia are associated with more than a half of dementia cases. However, most research has been conducted in the Global North, which does not adequately reflect the global diversity and socioeconomic disparities worldwide. Countries in the Global South may exhibit a distinct profile of modifiable dementia risk factors. In this study, we assessed the frequency of dementia risk factors across different cognitive statuses in a Brazilian sample drawn from a SUS (Brazilian health system) clinical laboratory. METHOD: We included individuals aged 18 and older who attended a clinical laboratory at a primary care center in Brazil. Cognitive screening was conducted using the Modified Telephone Interview (TICS-M), and functional independence was assessed with the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL). Participants were classified as Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) or Cognitively Impaired (CI) based on cognitive and functional scores, with a cutoff of Quick Dementia Rating System (QDRS) = 2.00 on the QDRS test. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors were evaluated using a structured questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0 (p < 0.05). RESULT: We included 43 participants over three months. Twenty-five (58.1%) were classified as CU and 18 (41.9%) as CI [15 (34.8%) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 3 (7%) with mild dementia]. The CI group reported more frequent feelings of loneliness (p = 0.021), poor sleeping quality (p = 0.024), hearing loss (p = 0.031), imbalance (p = 0.041), and memory decline (p <0.001, Table 1) compared to the CU group. Also, CI individuals scored higher for anxiety in GAD-2 (3.3±2.0, p <0.001) and for social vulnerability in CSS (4.6±1.4, p <0.001) than CU. However, no difference was observed between the groups regarding the cumulative presence of the 10 modifiable risk factors (Figure 1). CONCLUSION: The frequency of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for dementia may exhibit a different pattern in Brazil compared to other countries. Further studies are needed to investigate the prevalence of these risk factors to better target vulnerable populations through public health policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".