Informing Understandings of Mild Cognitive Impairment for Older Adults: Implications From a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of effective interventions for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older adults has been limited by extensive variability in the conceptualization and definition of MCI, its subtypes, and relevant diagnostic criteria within the neurocultural, pharmaceutical, and gerontological communities. A scoping review was conducted to explore the conceptual development of MCI and identify the resulting ethical, political, and technological implications for the care of older adults with MCI. A comprehensive search was conducted between January and April 2013 to identify English-language peer-reviewed articles published between 1999 and 2013. Our analysis revealed that the MCI conceptual debate remains unresolved, the response to ethical issues is contentious, the policy response is limited, and one-dimensional and technological interventions are scarce. Reflections on the conceptual, ethical, and policy responses in conjunction with the identification of the needs of older adults diagnosed with MCI highlight significant opportunities for technological interventions to effectively reposition MCI in the aging care discourse.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".