MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969992283 · doi:10.1159/000108661

Rethinking Vascular Dementia (Part 1 of 2)

2007· article· en· W1969992283 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and genetic disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfusionDementiaVascular dementiaCognitionCognitive impairmentCategorizationStroke (engine)PopulationCognitive declineLeukoaraiosisIntensive care medicinePathologyPsychiatryDiseasePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular dementia is growing in importance, so is the confusion surrounding it. Vascular dementia may be regarded as a syndrome of cognitive impairment resulting from vascular diseases, especially ischemic brain changes. It may be related to many different vascular mechanisms, types of brain changes and risk factors. However, currently no precise knowledge exists regarding the extent to which these factors cause, contribute or only coincide with the cognitive loss. The resulting imprecision in definition and diagnosis breeds confusion regarding prevention, treatment and incidence of the syndrome. In addition, the changing patterns of age of the population, risk factors and types of stroke complicate the clinical picture. Instead of comfortable categorization, the emphasis needs to be shifted to identifying and understanding the interactive vascular factors that contribute to cognitive impairment. This may open avenues in the search for modifiable and treatable vascular components.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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