MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Insight and danger in Alzheimer's disease

2007· article· en· W1978531945 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnosognosiaMedicineDepression (economics)Suicidal ideationDiseasePsychiatryNeuropsychologyPopulationClinical psychologyInjury preventionPoison controlCognitionMedical emergencyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the frequency, and demographic and clinical correlates of dangerous behaviours in Alzheimer's disease (AD). We assessed a consecutive series of 278 patients with AD and 45 age-comparable healthy controls with a comprehensive psychiatric and neuropsychological evaluation. Caregivers rated the frequency of patients' exposure to dangerous situations or commission of dangerous behaviours. The frequency of dangerous behaviours was 16% in the AD group and 2% in the healthy control group. The presence of anosognosia was associated with a threefold increase in the risk of dangerous behaviours, but there was no significant association between dangerous behaviours and patients' age, years of education, diagnosis of major or minor depression and presence of suicide ideation. Sixteen per cent of a consecutive series of patients with AD had dangerous behaviours during the month preceding the clinical evaluation. Anosognosia was the main clinical correlate of dangerous behaviours in this population.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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