A Canadian Cohort Study of Cognitive Impairment and Related Dementias (ACCORD): Study Methods and Baseline Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall objective of the Canadian Collaborative Cohort of Related Dementias (ACCORD) study is to describe the diagnostic distribution, natural history and treatment outcomes of individuals referred from the community to dementia clinics in Canada. Between 1997 and 1999, an inception cohort of 1,136 subjects entered into this longitudinal study. At the baseline assessment, 10.9% of the subjects were classified as "not cognitively impaired" (NCI), 30.1% as "cognitively impaired not demented" (CIND), and 59% as demented. A subclassification of CIND included amnestic 25.1%, vascular cognitive impairment 18.1%, psychiatric 17.2%, neurologic 7.3%, medical/toxic metabolic 3.5%, mixed 7.6% and not specified 19.0%. The percentage of the cohort referred with dementia increased progressively each decade, while the proportions of CIND and NCI decreased. Within the dementia group, Alzheimer's disease accounted for 47.2% of the subjects, mixed dementias 33.7%, vascular dementia 8.7%, frontotemporal degenerations 5.4%, dementia with Lewy bodies 2.5%, and unclassifiable 1.8%. The ACCORD cohort will allow a detailed study of the longitudinal course of CIND, and the longer-term outcomes of both treated and untreated dementia subjects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".