MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058064887 · doi:10.4061/2010/978182

Biological Markers and Alzheimer Disease: A Canadian Perspective

2010· article· en· W2058064887 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hyman M. Schipper

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)DiseaseAlzheimer's diseaseMedicinePathologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decreased beta-amyloid(1-42) and increased phospho-tau protein levels in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are currently the most accurate chemical neurodiagnostics of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD). A report (2007) of the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (2006) recommended that biological markers should not be currently requisitioned by primary care physicians in the routine investigation of subjects with memory complaints. Consideration for such testing should prompt patient referral to a specialist engaged in dementia evaluations or a Memory Clinic. The specialist should consider having CSF biomarkers (beta-amyloid(1-42) and phospho-tau) measured at a reputable facility in restricted cases presenting with atypical features and diagnostic confusion, but not as a routine procedure in all individuals with typical sporadic AD phenotypes. We submit that developments in the field of AD biomarker discovery since publication of the 3rd CCCDTD consensus data do not warrant revision of the 2007 recommendations.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207