Dementia Diagnostic Guidelines: Methodologies, Results, and Implementation Costs
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
OBJECTIVE: To facilitate the diagnostic process for dementia. Five guidelines and four consensus statements on specific diagnostic recommendations, specialist referral recommendations, and costs of recommended diagnostic procedures were compared and summarized. DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION: A MEDLINE search from 1984 to 1999 and queries to experts yielded 14 guidelines and consensus statements that addressed the diagnosis of dementia. Only nine documents which had national or international scopes were reviewed. METHODS: Comparisons were made on the specific diagnostic criteria for patient history, clinical examination, functional assessment, laboratory tests, neuroimaging, and other diagnostic tests, as well as specialist referral recommendations and costs for the recommended diagnostic procedures. The first three authors reviewed independently each document and completed a table on specific recommendations in each document. To settle disagreements about specific recommendations, they discussed them until they reached a consensus. To interpret the intent of vague statements, they used their best judgment. RESULTS: The documents differed in content, recommendations, and development methodology. They were based on either expert opinion or scientific evidence, or both. Although the nine documents were nearly unanimous in several recommendations, including assessing the presenting problem, taking a medical history, conducting physical and neurological examinations, and assessing the patient's mental and cognitive status, considerable differences in recommendations were common. Such differences led to large differentials in the estimated costs (range, $190 to $2,001) for recommended diagnostic assessments. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to diagnostic recommendations for dementia may induce greater consistency among guidelines and consensus statements. The current approach leads to considerable variability in recommendations and estimated costs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it