Undetected Dementia in Community‐Dwelling Older People: The Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency and correlates of undetected dementia in community-dwelling older people. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) prevalence survey of dementia. SETTING: All 10 provinces of Canada excluding Indian reserves and military units. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 252 community-dwelling older adults diagnosed with dementia in the CSHA survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Undetected dementia, defined as occurring in persons who meet standard diagnostic criteria for dementia but who report never having seen a doctor for memory problems. RESULTS: Of the 252 subjects, 64% had undetected dementia. Subjects with mild functional impairment were significantly more likely to have undetected dementia (odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.2, 5.0). Older subjects and those with mild cognitive impairment showed a trend toward undetected dementia, although the results did not achieve statistical significance. Educational level, number of comorbid conditions, and degree of social support were not significantly associated with undetected dementia. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of older persons are living in the community with undetected dementia. These older people may be at significant risk for delirium, motor vehicle accidents, medication errors, and financial difficulties. As preventive strategies are developed and new cognitive enhancing therapies emerge, we need to reexamine our current guidelines about screening for cognitive impairment in older adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".