Five-Year Follow-up of Cognitive Impairment With No Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The importance of early identification of dementia has prompted numerous investigations of mild cognitive impairment and the preclinical stages of progressive degenerative disorders. To date, there is limited information from large-scale studies regarding outcomes of persons specifically identified with cognitive impairment but no dementia (CIND). OBJECTIVES: To investigate outcomes for persons with no cognitive impairment (NCI) or CIND, focusing on its etiologic subcategories, from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) and to examine the predictive validity of a set of core features thought to be early manifestations of subsequent dementia. DESIGN: Five-year, longitudinal follow-up of all persons without dementia examined during the first phase of the CSHA in 1991. SETTING: Community and institutional settings. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of 883 persons with NCI and 801 persons with CIND at the first phase of the CSHA. At follow-up, 517 persons with NCI (59%) and 327 persons with CIND (41%) were alive and received clinical diagnoses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, institutionalization, and clinical diagnoses using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition criteria for dementia. RESULTS: Persons with CIND were more likely than those with NCI to die (49% vs 30%), to be admitted to facility care (29% vs 14%), or to receive diagnoses of dementia (47% vs 15%) at follow-up. Those subsequently diagnosed as having dementia were more likely to have had impaired memory, informant-reported change in memory, and functional impairment at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with CIND were more likely to have a negative outcome than persons with NCI during a 5-year interval. This was true across etiologic subcategories and suggests that the use of specific diagnostic criteria sets does not improve our identification of those who develop dementia compared with a broader, more inclusive approach. More factors contributed to the prediction of all forms of dementia than to AD, but the most accurate prediction was for those who remained dementia free.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".