Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents recommendations deriving from the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia, concerning the clinical diagnosis of dementia. There are currently no universally accepted biological or radiological markers of dementia. In the absence of these, the diagnosis of dementia remains a clinical exercise aiming to integrate all available clinical and laboratory information. It is proposed that the currently used National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS/ADRA) criteria for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) be retained. The currently available vascular dementia (VaD) diagnostic criteria have variable accuracy. An integrative approach to VaD diagnosis based on all the available evidence (history, vascular risk factors, physical exam, clinical course, neuroimaging, cognitive impairment pattern) is recommended. The separation of Lewy body dementia (DLB) from Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) is based on the dominant clinical presenting feature of each syndrome, and relies on the duration of this feature: long duration of parkinsonian "motor" syndrome preceding dementia for PDD versus early/initial dementia accompanied by extrapyramidal symptoms for DLB. It is recognized that it is impossible clinically to characterize DLB with (pathologically) coexisting AD changes. The Frontotemporal group of dementia syndromes are discussed in regards to their typical clinical pictures, recognizing that their neuropathological substrate are not predictable from their mode of presentation. Finally, the particular rapid time sequence of evolution of the dementias due to prior disease is recognized as the clinically most useful distinguishing feature of these syndromes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".