Five-Year Outcomes for Dementia Defined Solely by Neuropsychological Test Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment that does not meet criteria for dementia is common and progresses to dementia at a high rate. It is not clear how best to define this type of cognitive impairment. We assessed the predictive validity of different case definitions for cognitive impairment and dementia by comparing rates of adverse outcomes for individuals who did not meet dementia criteria but had neuropsychological test results indicating dementia (NPDementia), those who had traditional dementia diagnoses (mild and moderate-severe severity), those who had other cognitive impairment but no dementia (CIND), and those with no cognitive impairment (NCI). Our sample comprised 1,659 participants who had completed a neuropsychological assessment in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a prospective, cohort study of 10,263 randomly selected persons aged 65 years or older. Outcomes were determined after 5 years. Institutionalization and death rates for the NPDementia and CIND groups were higher than for the NCI group. Both groups had lower institutionalization rates than the two Dementia groups and lower death rates than the Moderate-Severe Dementia group. Rates of progression to dementia were increased in NPDementia and CIND groups, relative to the NCI group, and the NPDementia group was less likely than the CIND group to revert to a diagnosis of NCI at the 5-year follow-up. Thus, individuals with NPDementia and CIND have substantially worse outcomes over 5 years than those with NCI. The case definition of NPDementia identified individuals with cognitive impairment that is unlikely to resolve and likely to progress to dementia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".