MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063138855 · doi:10.1212/wnl.57.4.714

Progression of impairment in patients with vascular cognitive impairment without dementia

2001· article· en· W2063138855 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn Wentzel, Kenneth Rockwood, Chris MacKnight, Vladimir Hachinski, David B. Hogan, Howard Feldman, Truls Østbye, Christina Wolfson, Serge Gauthier, René Verreault, Ian McDowell

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitive impairmentVascular dementiaMedicineCognitionPsychological interventionGerontologyPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about progression, short of dementia, in vascular cognitive impairment. In the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, 149 participants (79.3 +/- 6.7 years; 61% women) were found to have vascular cognitive impairment, no dementia (CIND). After 5 years, 77 participants (52%) had died and 58 (46%) had developed dementia. Women were at greater risk of dementia (OR 2.1, 1.0 to 4.5). Of 32 participants alive without dementia, cognition had deteriorated in seven and improved in four. Half of those with vascular CIND developed dementia within 5 years, suggesting a target for preventive interventions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations243
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207