The Cause and Consequence Relationships between Domestic Abuse and Alzheimer's Disease: Identification of Five Subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic abuse (DA) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD; and related dementias) are two of humankind's most significant societal healthcare issues: DA is widespread, with one in three women and one in four men experiencing physical, psychological, emotional, sexual and/or financial abuse in their lifetime; AD is the most common form of dementia and will affect more than 152 million people worldwide by 2050. Given the incidence and prevalence of these two problems, any cause or effect relationship between them carries profound societal consequences. Herein, we describe five types of overlapping relationships between DA and AD: 1. Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for AD; 2. AD as a risk factor for ongoing or worsening DA; 3. Abuse of caregivers by people with AD; 4. Abuse of people with AD by caregivers; and 5. Reactivation of DA behavior in a person with AD. Chronologically, these five types cover the spectrum from occurring decades before the start of AD symptoms to onset only after the AD symptoms have manifested. Mechanistically, these five subtypes reflect the paradoxical fact that DA and AD may be the cause or consequence (or both) of each other. Phenomenologically, they encompass the full spectrum of DA including physical, psychological, emotional, sexual and financial abuse. Given the challenges in recognizing, managing and treating both DA and AD, society's need to identify and prevent these five subtypes of DA/AD overlap is an emerging priority.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".