MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517627262 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511575976.015

Vascular factors in Alzheimer’s disease

2009· book-chapter· en· W1517627262 on OpenAlexaff
Miia Kivipelto, Alina Solomon, Tiia Ngandu

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and genetic disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral blood flowPositron emission tomographyDementiaVascular dementiaSingle-photon emission computed tomographyNeuroimagingMedicineDiseaseCADASILEmission computed tomographyAlzheimer's diseaseEtiologyInternal medicineNuclear medicineCardiologyPsychologyRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of functional imaging in clinical practice is to increase diagnostic accuracy when differentiating between dementia disorders. The techniques most often used are imaging of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF), using single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and imaging of glucose metabolism using positron emission tomography (PET). rCBF assessed with SPECT has been used to study vascular reactivity and to evaluate the effect of dementia treatment. It has also been studied in CADASIL, a hereditary form of vascular dementia (VaD). PET shows the same disease pattern as SPECT when ligands are used for investigating rCBF. It is also used to study regional glucose metabolism using Fluoro-Deoxy-D-Glucose (FDG), oxygen metabolic extraction rate and cerebral oxygen metabolic rate. According to the meta review by Dougall and his group, it is clear that the clinical usefulness of SPECT in differentiating VaD from Alzheimer's disease is limited.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCerebrovascular and genetic disordersFrench-language works237,207