Prevalence of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia as Defined by Neuropsychological Test Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) provided a population-based estimate of the prevalence of dementia of 8% for those aged 65 and older. Other studies have produced both higher and lower prevalence estimates. Factors that may contribute to these differences include: the use of or the reliance on neuropsychological testing, the consideration of functional impairment as a criterion for dementia and the inclusion of the category of cognitive impairment without dementia in the diagnostic classification. We examined the impact of these methodological factors by reanalyzing the CSHA database for those individuals who completed neuropsychological testing. If the diagnosis of dementia required only impaired neuropsychological test performance, there was an increased prevalence of dementia relative to the clinical consensus diagnosis, but including the requirement of functional impairment for dementia reduced this discrepancy. The findings illustrate the need for clear operationalization of diagnostic criteria for cognitive impairment and dementia in neuroepidemiological studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".