MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117260471 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_103478

Associations of adverse childhood experiences and social vulnerability with a diagnosis of cognitive impairment or dementia

2025· article· en· W7117260471 on OpenAlexaff
Judith Godin, Selena P. Maxwell, Jasmine Mah, Maia von Maltzahn, Lindsay Wallace, Shanna Trenaman, Theou Olga, Kenneth Rockwood, Melissa Andrew

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitive impairmentVulnerability (computing)CognitionOddsAssociation (psychology)Odds ratioCognitive disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adverse childhood experiences and social vulnerability in adulthood are associated with poorer health outcomes including cognitive impairment and dementia. One proposed mechanism linking adverse childhood experiences with later development of dementia is the association with other known social risk factors such as lower education. Here, we consider the association of social vulnerability, a comprehensive measure of social risk factors, and adverse childhood experiences with a clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairment or dementia. METHOD: We analyzed data from 949 participants in the COMPASS-ND study of neurodegenerative disorders. Social vulnerability was measured using a deficit accumulation approach resulting in a 49-item social vulnerability index (SVI). Early childhood experience was assessed using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire and participants were grouped into 0, 1-2, and 3 or more adverse childhood experiences. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine associations between adverse childhood experiences and social vulnerability with clinical diagnosis (i.e., dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) compared to cognitively unimpaired). Models included adverse childhood experiences, the SVI, and were adjusted for age, education, and an 81-item frailty index. Analyses were conducted separately for each sex with clinical diagnosis as the outcome. RESULTS: Ages ranged from 42-90 years (M=72, SD=7.3) and 48.3% were female. For females, there was no statistically significant association between adverse childhood experience and diagnoses. Every 0.1 difference in the SVI was associated with higher odds of MCI (OR = 1.41, 95%CI=1.11-1.80) and SCI (OR=1.53, 95%CI=1.18-1.98) compared to cognitively unimpaired females. For males, neither adverse childhood events nor social vulnerability had a statistically significant association with diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Being more socially vulnerable as an adult is associated with higher odds of experiencing mild or subjective cognitive impairment in females. As this is a cross-sectional study, we do not know the direction of the association and it is likely bi-directional to some degree. Strategies for reducing social vulnerability may also provide bi-directional benefits in improving the lives of females who have cognitive impairment and providing some protection against cognitive decline.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→