MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993924480 · doi:10.3810/pgm.2010.07.2178

Overcoming the Barriers to the Diagnosis of Dementia

2010· review· en· W1993924480 on OpenAlexaff
Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenuePostgraduate Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineGold standard (test)Physical examinationCognitionCognitive impairmentPsychiatryMedical historyGerontologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive assessment is an important skill for health care providers, particularly when considering the increasing prevalence of dementia. Studies have shown that the current diagnostic criteria for dementia are inadequate, and dementia is missed in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Screening tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, detect the presence of cognitive impairment but will not provide a diagnosis of dementia. The gold standard for diagnosing dementia is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria. Different causes of dementia are assessed by conducting a detailed history and physical examination of the patient. Differentiating mild cognitive impairment from dementia is very important in terms of medical management, particularly in relation to treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePostgraduate MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207