Inter-Rater Reliability of the Diagnosis of Vascular Cognitive Impairment at a Memory Clinic
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of vascular dementia (VaD) are gradually being replaced with data-based criteria. We report the inter-rater reliability of a new set of empirically-derived criteria for vascular cognitive impairment (VCI). Stratified sampling, with optimal allocation, was employed to randomly select 36 patients from the Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Centre's Memory Disability Clinic. Chart reviews were conducted independently by 4 physicians. Each physician classified the patients as having either: no cognitive impairment, VCI or Alzheimer's disease (AD). VCI was further classified both clinically (VCI without dementia, VaD or AD with a vascular component) and radiographically (infarcts, white matter changes, single strategic stroke). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the diagnosis by physicians of VCI or otherwise was based on a repeated-measures analysis of variance with raters as the independent variable. A significant coefficient of reliability (average ICC = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80-0.93) was obtained (H(o): rho </= 0.80, p = 0.03). Where differences in diagnosis occurred, the discrepancies most commonly resulted within the subtypes of VCI (9 cases) or between the diagnoses of AD and VCI (9 cases). Instances of diagnostic incongruity were typically due to the disagreement of a single rater (10 cases). This study demonstrates a high degree of reliability of criteria for VCI by physicians in a memory clinic, and can also be understood as an aspect of construct validation of those criteria. In the absence of a readily available biological marker for VCI, clinical criteria are necessary and can be reliably employed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 it