MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066091513 · doi:10.1017/s1041610213001749

What should we do if we were wrong and Alzheimer was right?

2013· editorial· en· W2066091513 on OpenAlexafffund
John C.S. Breitner

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2013
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Dementia Research AllianceDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersMcGill UniversityFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityPfizer
KeywordsDementiaSenile dementiaCognitionPsychosisCognitive declineSenile plaquesGerontologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryAlzheimer's diseasePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than 2,000 years cognitive decline and dementia were considered a part of aging, like graying of hair, wrinkling of skin, or (more recently) reduction of pulmonary capacity or glomerular filtration rate. Thus, our recent predecessors considered “senile dementia” a normal consequence of the aging process. Their confidence increased after Martin Roth and colleagues added specificity to the concept by differentiating it within the broader category of “senile psychosis” (which, consequently, became obsolete). A diagnosis of “Alzheimer's pre-senile dementia,” by contrast, was reserved for people with earlier onset of dementia.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.342 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PsychogeriatricsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207