MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972349970 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2007.07.013

Mild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia: Part A, concept and diagnosis

2007· article· en· W1972349970 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Charles-Le MoyneMcGill UniversityInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLundbeck CanadaAlzheimer SocietyMcGill University
KeywordsDementiaCognitive impairmentMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionPsychologyMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitive impairment, no dementia (CIND) are controversial emerging terms that encompass the clinical state between elderly normal cognition and dementia. This article reviews recent work on the classification of MCI and CIND, their prognosis, and diagnostic approaches and presents evidence-based recommendations approved at the meeting of the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD3) held in Montreal in March, 2006. New short tools such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment are making it easier for family physicians to confidently attach the label of MCI.

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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.292 · 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