MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Societal Costs of Vascular Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults

2002· article· en· W2075977497 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kenneth Rockwood, Murray G. Brown, Heather Merry, Ingrid Sketris, John D. Fisk

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHealth CanadaDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health Research FoundationDalhousie Medical Research FoundationUniversité de SherbrookeCanadian Health Services Research FoundationUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineCognitive impairmentCognitionGerontologyStroke (engine)Intensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The construct of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) includes many whose care is or will be costly. Nevertheless, estimates of these costs are not well described. We therefore set out to estimate the societal costs of VCI in elderly people. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a representative cohort study, Canadian dollar costs using a societal perspective were estimated by standard methods. RESULTS: The total annual per-patient societal costs for VCI by severity were $15 022 for those with mild disease, $14 468 for those with mild to moderate disease, $20 063 for those with moderate disease, and $34 515 for those with severe disease. The most expensive component per individual was the cost of institutional long-term care. Although severe impairment was associated with higher costs, the extent of institutionalization at all levels of severity and less drug use among those more severely impaired mitigated a severity-cost gradient. CONCLUSIONS: The societal costs of VCI are not inconsiderable. In contrast to Alzheimer disease, there is no clear gradient relating cost to severity. Unpaid caregiver costs are an important aspect of societal costs, even in those with only mild impairment.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

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

Citations82
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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