Rates of Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased interest in types of dementia has developed as more cases are identified in aging populations. Here we compare the rates of cognitive decline over time in three groups with dementia from the University of Western Ontario Dementia Study: Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies and a group with both AD and Lewy bodies. All diagnoses were verified by autopsy using standard diagnostic methods. Cognitive impairment was measured with the Extended Scale for Dementia (ESD). Members of each group with dementia were age and sex matched with individuals without dementia as controls. The 15 cases of AD, 7 cases with Lewy bodies and 8 cases with both conditions were all free of significant vascular disease. Linear regression was used to determine the rate of changes in ESD scores over time in months. All three control groups showed no change in cognitive status over time. As expected, all groups with dementia showed progressive cognitive impairment. Analysis of the slope parameter showed that all groups deteriorated at the same rate of approximately 2 ESD points per month. Quadratic models fit better than simple linear models in all groups. Results suggest that the final rate of cognitive decline in dementia may not necessarily reflect the underlying cause.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".