MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116972252 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_105618

Risk factor profiles and changes in risk factors and cognitive function over 12 months: The CAN‐THUMBS UP Brain Health Support Program Study

2025· article· en· W7116972252 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline S. Duchaine, Manuel Montero‐Odasso, Haakon B. Nygaard, Paul Brewster, Diane M. Jacobs, Nicole D. Anderson, January Durant, Jody‐Lynn Lupo, Howard Chertkow, Howard H. Feldman, Sylvie Belleville

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheBaycrest HospitalOntario Brain InstituteWestern UniversityInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitionRisk factorIntervention (counseling)Brain functionRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dementia risk factors often coexist and interact in ways that create distinct profiles, which may influence the efficacy of lifestyle-based interventions aimed at reducing dementia risk. This study aimed to: 1) characterize dementia risk profiles in participants of the CAN-THUMBS-UP Brain Health Support Program (BHSP), and 2) evaluate whether these profiles predict responses to a 45-week educational intervention. METHOD: We analyzed data from 296 BHSP participants with complete baseline assessments. Principal component analysis identified risk profiles based on seven modifiable risk factors: physical activity, cognitive engagement, diet, sleep, social and psychological health, vascular health, and vision and hearing. All participants accessed Brain Health PRO, a web-based educational intervention targeting these modifiable risk factors. Risk factor changes were measured through lifestyle questionnaires administered every three months, and cognitive changes were measured via a neuropsychological test battery at baseline and 12 months. Linear mixed models with repeated measures, adjusted for age, sex, education, and cognitive status evaluated associations between risk profiles and changes in cognition and risk factors. RESULT: Three distinct profiles were identified: 1) sleep and social/psychological health, 2) cognitive engagement, and 3) diet, physical activity and vascular heath. Across all profiles, lower baseline scores indicated a higher risk in the factors that characterized each profile. Participants with lower baseline scores in the first two profiles showed greater improvements in associated risk factor domains compared to those with better baseline scores. In the third profile, participants with lower baseline scores showed greater improvements in diet and physical activity, but no change was observed in vascular health. No association was observed between any of the risk profiles and cognitive change. A longer follow-up or a more intensive intervention beyond online education may be needed to impact vascular health and cognition. CONCLUSION: Understanding dementia risk factor profiles and their influence on intervention effects can help inform more personalized prevention strategies. Further research is needed to validate and refine these profiles.

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)0.003
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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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→