A hierarchy of predictors for dementia‐free survival in old‐age: results of the AgeCoDe study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Progression from cognitive impairment (CI) to dementia is predicted by several factors, but their relative importance and interaction are unclear. METHOD: We investigated numerous such factors in the AgeCoDe study, a longitudinal study of general practice patients aged 75+. We used recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) to identify hierarchical patterns of baseline covariates that predicted dementia-free survival. RESULTS: Among 784 non-demented patients with CI, 157 (20.0%) developed dementia over a follow-up interval of 4.5 years. RPA showed that more severe cognitive compromise, revealed by a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score < 27.47, was the strongest predictor of imminent dementia. Dementia-free survival time was shortest (mean 2.4 years) in such low-scoring patients who also had impaired instrumental activities of daily living (iADL) and subjective memory impairment with related worry (SMI-w). Patients with identical characteristics but without SMI-w had an estimated mean dementia-free survival time of 3.8 years, which was still shorter than in patients who had subthreshold MMSE scores but intact iADL (4.2-5.2 years). CONCLUSION: Hierarchical patterns of readily available covariates can predict dementia-free survival in older general practice patients with CI. Although less widely appreciated than other variables, iADL impairment appears to be an especially noteworthy predictor of progression to 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".