MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2030062767 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2006.05.320

O4–04–03: Amnestic mild cognitive impairment in a referral population—a non–progressing subgroup exists on long–term follow–up

2006· article· en· W2030062767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard Chertkow, Howard Bergman, Christian Bocti, Roger McKelvey, Natalie Phillips, Victor Whitehead

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityConcordia UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMemory clinicMedicineCohortCognitive declinePopulationPediatricsReferralMemory impairmentNeuropsychologyCohort studyCognitionPsychiatryInternal medicineDiseaseFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of individuals meeting current criteria for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) will eventually go on to dementia. It remains unclear, however, whether all of them will do so. There is accumulating evidence that patients with MCI may not have a uniformly poor prognosis. Few long–term studies of MCI patients seen in referral Memory Clinics exist to document this. To characterize the longitudinal natural history of amnestic MCI patients referred to a Memory Clinic. A cohort of individuals referred to the McGill/Jewish General Hospital Memory Clinic in Montreal, meeting current criteria for amnestic MCI (n= 89) were followed prospectively annually, or until progression to dementia. At presentation all patients had objective cognitive deficits (1.5 SD from norm) in episodic memory with or without other deficits. The clinical records and neuropsychological data were reviewed. The mean initial age of onset of subjective memory complaints was 68.1±8.5 years [57–82]. A subset of patients has shown no progression to dementia even after long term follow–up. The range of follow–up time for non–progressors has been 6 to 14 years. 18/89 (20%) of the cohort were still MCI a mean 12 years (min. follow–up 9 years) since onset of their memory loss. That number rises to 22/89 (25%) if the minimal follow–up time is reduced to 7.5 years, Possible confounders, insufficient in severity to result in exclusion from the study, were present in most subjects (20/22): these included cerebrovascular risk factors (present in 15 individuals), mild depressive symptoms (found in 12 subjects). psychotropic drug use (found in 11 subjects), various other co–morbid conditions with potential impact on cognition (found in 11 subjects), incidental finding of lacunes on MRI (n=2), and a remote history of static brain injury or general anesthesia (n=3). MCI is a heterogenous condition. Subjects who do not progress to dementia even 9 years after memory complaints begin, make up from 20% to 25% of a Memory Clinic MCI cohort. Confounding conditions and cognitive aging may produce this subgroup. The MCI prognosis, in other words, is not uniformly bleak.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→