MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059541983 · doi:10.1186/1471-2377-13-165

COSMIC (Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium): An international consortium to identify risk and protective factors and biomarkers of cognitive ageing and dementia in diverse ethnic and sociocultural groups

2013· article· en· W2059541983 on OpenAlexafffund
Perminder S. Sachdev, Darren M. Lipnicki, Nicole A. Kochan, Kenneth Rockwood, Shifu Xiao, Juan Li, Xia Li, Carol Brayne, Fiona E. Matthews, Blossom C. M. Stephan, Richard B. Lipton, Mindy J. Katz, Karen Ritchie, Isabelle Carrière, Marie‐Laure Ancelin, Sudha Seshadri, Rhoda Au, Alexa Beiser, Linda Lam, Candy Wong, Ada W. T. Fung, Ki Woong Kim, Ji Won Han, Tae Hui Kim, Ronald C. Petersen, Rosebud O. Roberts, Michelle M. Mielke, Mary Ganguli, Hiroko H. Dodge, Tiffany F. Hughes, Kaarin J. Anstey, Nicolas Cherbuin, Peter Butterworth, Tze Pin Ng, Qi Gao, Simone Reppermund, Henry Brodaty, Kenichi Meguro, Nicole Schupf, Jennifer J. Manly, Yaakov Stern, António Lobo, Raúl López‐Antón, Javier Santabárbara

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neurology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on AgingHealth CanadaPfizer FoundationAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchMedical Research CouncilEisaiBiomedical Research CouncilNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePfizerNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsDementiaNeurocognitiveCognitionNeuropsychologyMedicineGerontologyCognitive declineCohortAgeingPopulation ageingCohort studyPopulationPsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A large number of longitudinal studies of population-based ageing cohorts are in progress internationally, but the insights from these studies into the risk and protective factors for cognitive ageing and conditions like mild cognitive impairment and dementia have been inconsistent. Some of the problems confounding this research can be reduced by harmonising and pooling data across studies. COSMIC (Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium) aims to harmonise data from international cohort studies of cognitive ageing, in order to better understand the determinants of cognitive ageing and neurocognitive disorders. METHODS/DESIGN: Longitudinal studies of cognitive ageing and dementia with at least 500 individuals aged 60 years or over are eligible and invited to be members of COSMIC. There are currently 17 member studies, from regions that include Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. A Research Steering Committee has been established, two meetings of study leaders held, and a website developed. The initial attempts at harmonising key variables like neuropsychological test scores are in progress. DISCUSSION: The challenges of international consortia like COSMIC include efficient communication among members, extended use of resources, and data harmonisation. Successful harmonisation will facilitate projects investigating rates of cognitive decline, risk and protective factors for mild cognitive impairment, and biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Extended implications of COSMIC could include standardised ways of collecting and reporting data, and a rich cognitive ageing database being made available to other researchers. COSMIC could potentially transform our understanding of the epidemiology of cognitive ageing, and have a world-wide impact on promoting successful ageing.

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0050.016
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207