MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974317715 · doi:10.1586/14737175.8.5.743

Vascular risk factors and Alzheimer’s disease

2008· review· en· W1974317715 on OpenAlexaff
David F. Cechetto, Vladimir Hachinski, Shawn N. Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaStroke (engine)Internal medicineDiabetes mellitusCognitive declineNeuroinflammationCardiologyAtrial fibrillationVascular dementiaDiseaseRisk factorVascular diseaseAmyloid (mycology)PathologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vascular cognitive impairment risk factors include stroke, hypertension, diabetes and atherosclerosis. In the elderly, vascular risk factors occur in the presence of high levels of amyloid in the aging brain. Stroke alters the clinical expression of a given load of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. Experimentally, large vessel infarcts or small striatal infarcts are larger in the presence of amyloid. Patients with minor cerebral infarcts and moderate AD lesions will develop the clinical manifestations of dementia. Moreover, there is also an association between other vascular risk factors and the clinical expression of cognitive decline and dementia. The risk of AD is increased in subjects with adult-onset diabetes mellitus, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease and atrial fibrillation. Experimentally, small striatal infarcts in the presence of high levels of amyloid in the brain exhibit a progression in infarct size over time with enhanced degree of cognitive impairment, AD-type pathology and neuroinflammation compared with striatal infarcts or high amyloid levels alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations127
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207