MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116932387 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_098233

Comparing the Association Between Dementia Risk Scores and Cognitive Function Among Members of a Research‐based Community Centre for Dementia Risk Reduction

2025· article· en· W7116932387 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle D'Amico, Brian Tan, Deanise Berba, Howard Chertkow, Nicole Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaAssociation (psychology)CognitionBaseline (sea)Cognitive impairmentCognitive decline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dementia risk scores may be useful in facilitating communication of risk to adults seeking to support their health and wellness, maintain their cognitive function, and reduce their risk of developing dementia. While various scoring algorithms exist, limited research has compared how these scores are differentially associated with cognition among community-dwelling adults. METHOD: The objective of this study was to examine the association between five dementia risk scores (CogDrisk, LIBRA, modified LIBRA [mLIBRA], CAIDE, and Brain Care Score [BCS]) and cognitive function among 253 adults without dementia who are members of a research-based community centre for dementia risk reduction (mean age = 69.6±8.9 [range = 50 - 95], 77% female). Cognitive function was assessed using Cogniciti's Brain Health Assessment (BHA) total score, with higher scores representing better cognition. Higher dementia risk scores indicate greater dementia risk, with the exception of the BCS. Generalized linear models were used to determine the associations between dementia risk scores and cognitive function. RESULT: Lower CogDrisk scores (r = -0.36, p < 0.001), mLIBRA scores (r = -0.37, p < 0.001), and CAIDE scores (r = -0.15, p = 0.02) were associated with higher BHA scores. LIBRA scores (r = -0.08, p = 0.21) and BCS scores (r = 0.07, p = 0.28) were not significantly associated with BHA scores. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest scoring algorithms that include non-modifiable sociodemographic information (age and sex) have a stronger association with cognitive function compared to those that only include modifiable factors (e.g., physical activity, hypertension, diabetes). As this study was cross-sectional in nature, future research should examine how baseline and change in dementia risk scores predict change in cognitive function over time in order to better guide implementation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→