Neuropsychological Predictors of Incident Dementia in Patients With Vascular Cognitive Impairment, Without Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vascular cognitive impairment that does not fulfill dementia criteria (ie, vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia [CIND]) is common. Although progression to dementia is frequent, little is known about factors that predict progression. We examined whether performance on neuropsychological tests administered at baseline could predict incident cases of dementia in patients with vascular CIND after 5 years. Summary of Report- The Canadian Study of Health and Aging is a prospective, cohort study of 10 263 randomly selected persons aged > or =65 years. Of 149 people diagnosed with vascular CIND, 125 completed a battery of neuropsychological tests at baseline. Follow-up cognitive diagnoses were available for 102 individuals. After 5 years, 45 patients (44%) developed dementia. Low baseline scores on tests of memory and category fluency were associated with incident dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropsychological measures can indicate risk of dementia in patients with vascular CIND. This study did not suggest a prediction-to-progression profile distinct from that seen in Alzheimer disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".