×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]oddjamTexas 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Does everyone just get dementia at the age of 70? I thought it was a disease that only some old people get.

[–][deleted]  (9 children)

[deleted]

    [–]oddjamTexas -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

    Yeah exactly! If your over 80 you still only have a 17% chance of getting dementia. Why would anyone approach a situation with such slim odds as though it's likely to occur?

    [–]SpeedflyChris 7 points8 points  (7 children)

    Dementia isn't a black and white. Beyond that 17% a very significant amount will have significant degeneration that does not yet meet the threshold for a Dementia diagnosis.

    [–]oddjamTexas -1 points0 points  (6 children)

    Beyond that 17% a very significant amount will have significant degeneration that does not yet meet the threshold for a Dementia diagnosis.

    You got a source on that?

    Still seems like a possibility rather than a probability.

    [–]SpeedflyChris 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    What, are you literally asking me if age-related cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment exist?

    Five seconds on google and you could have answered that for yourself.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21491632

    Prevalence of CI ranged from 4 to 70% depending on the impairment criteria used. Agreement between different criteria was poor to moderate. This lack of consistency had greatest impact on MCI subtype classifications with many being reclassified as “normal” or into a different subtype when stringency of the criteria was increased or decreased.

    [–]oddjamTexas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    What, are you literally asking me if age-related cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment exist?

    No that's a silly assumption. I wanted to see what the basis for this claim was:

    Beyond that 17% a very significant amount will have significant degeneration that does not yet meet the threshold for a Dementia diagnosis.

    4% to 70% of all subjects, and an undefined criteria for diagnosis doesn't seem like a "significant amount" of the remaining 83% and it doesn't suggest they have "significant degeneration"

    Especially when the study was meant to look at the criteria used to disgnose CI, and especially when the conclusion is "The prevalence of CI was strongly affected by the choice of neuropsychological assessment parameters. Guidelines for operationalizing CI are required."

    This is why I asked for your source, because it doesn't support your claim at all. You just guessed it up and then tried to find something that agrees with your guess. But you literally couldn't even do that. In-fucking-credible

    Edit: where did you go?