MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972336244 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.09.008

The prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and its etiological subtypes in elderly Chinese

2014· article· en· W1972336244 on OpenAlexaff
Jianping Jia, Aihong Zhou, Cuibai Wei, Xiangfei Jia, Fen Wang, Li Fang, Xiaoguang Wu, Vincent Mok, Serge Gauthier, Muni Tang, Lan Chu, You-long Zhou, Chunkui Zhou, Yong Cui, Qi Wang, Weishan Wang, Peng Yin, Nan Hu, Xiumei Zuo, Haiqing Song, Wei Qin, Liyong Wu, Dan Li, Longfei Jia, Juexian Song, Ying Han, Yi Xing, Peijie Yang, Yuemei Li, Yuchen Qiao, Yi Tang, Jihui Lv, Xiu-min Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalDementiaCognitive impairmentEtiologyInternal medicineGerontologyDiseasePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are limited in China. METHODS: Using a multistage cluster sampling design, a total of 10,276 community residents (6096 urban, 4180 rural) aged 65 years or older were evaluated and diagnosed with normal cognition, MCI, or dementia. MCI was further categorized by imaging into MCI caused by prodromal Alzheimer's disease (MCI-A), MCI resulting from cerebrovascular disease (MCI-CVD), MCI with vascular risk factors (MCI-VRF), and MCI caused by other diseases (MCI-O). RESULTS: The prevalences of overall MCI, MCI-A, MCI-CVD, MCI-VRF, and MCI-O were 20.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 20.0-21.6%), 6.1% (95% CI = 5.7-6.6%), 3.8% (95% CI = 3.4-4.2%), 4.9% (95% CI = 4.5-5.4%), and 5.9% (95% CI = 5.5-6.4%) respectively. The rural population had a higher prevalence of overall MCI (23.4% vs 16.8%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MCI in elderly Chinese is higher in rural than in urban areas. Vascular-related MCI (MCI-CVD and MCI-VRF) was most common.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations196
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207