MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1778321251 · doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2015.06.005

The CAIDE Dementia Risk Score App: The development of an evidence‐based mobile application to predict the risk of dementia

2015· article· en· W1778321251 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shireen Sindi, Elisabeth Calov, J. G. Fokkens, Tiia Ngandu, Hilkka Soininen, Jaakko Tuomilehto, Miia Kivipelto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéAlzheimerfondenMerz PharmaceuticalsVetenskapsrådetAcademy of FinlandAXA Research Fund
KeywordsDementiaPsychologyMedicineGerontologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia) Dementia Risk Score is a validated tool to predict late-life dementia risk (20 years later), based on midlife vascular risk factors. The goal was to render this prediction tool widely accessible. METHODS: The CAIDE Risk Score (mobile application) App was developed based on the CAIDE Dementia Risk Score, involving information on age, educational level, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and physical inactivity. RESULTS: The CAIDE Risk Score App is an evidence-based practical tool, which allows users to detect their individual risk, provides guidance for risk modification, and suggests consulting a health care practitioner if needed. Moreover, it allows practitioners to discuss preventive measures and monitor risk reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The CAIDE Risk Score App is the first to predict the risk for dementia through an important evidence-based tool. The App can encourage users to actively decrease their modifiable risk factors and postpone cognitive impairment and dementia.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations116
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease MonitoringSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207