Cognitive Impairment with No Dementia (CIND): Longitudinal Studies, the Findings, and the Issues
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
Identification of persons at risk for developing dementia is of increasing importance as the proportion of persons over the age of 65 years grows globally. This review examines the neuropsychological literature specifically addressing the concept of impaired cognitive functioning of insufficient magnitude to warrant a diagnosis of dementia and its meaning with respect to the development of dementia. Although the most obvious finding in the literature is that persons with impaired cognitive functioning have varied outcomes, it is clear that a significant proportion of persons with mild cognitive impairment progress to dementia over a 1- to 2-year interval and approximately 50% progress to dementia by 5 years. The best and most commonly identified predictors of decline to dementia include age and lower baseline performance on neuropsychological measures (e.g., measures of memory). In discussing these findings, issues related to sample definition, sample selection, and methodology are identified and recommendations for future research are provided.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it