Toward a revision of criteria for the dementias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article critically considers current diagnostic criteria for dementia and reports recommendations approved by at least 80% of experts attending the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD3). There was consensus that many of the features proposed as essential to a diagnosis of dementia in the 1980s no longer are relevant (for example, the requirements for memory impairment, electroencephalogram and cerebrospinal fluid studies, age-specific exclusions). In addition, other syndromes such as frontotemporal dementia have been recognized and need to inform new dementia criteria. It is also recognized that a diagnosis of depression need not exclude a dementia diagnosis. Other proposals, such as neuropathology should be considered as additional evidence and not as a gold standard or that some people with dementia have prolonged plateaus so that progressive decline need not be a criterion for Alzheimer's disease (AD), were more controversial and did not receive similar support. Given the evidence of the last three decades, there is merit in reconsidering the criteria by which dementia and AD are diagnosed.
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 | 0.065 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".