Rates of progression in mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of progression in the very mildest stages of AD, including the stage currently identified as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to identify predictors of those rates. METHODS: Demented (n = 289) and nondemented (n = 230) individuals enrolled in longitudinal studies at an Alzheimer Disease Research Center received annual clinical and psychometric examinations for up to 20 years. In order of increasing dementia severity, demented individuals were diagnosed with incipient, very mild, or mild dementia; the incipient stage is equivalent to MCI. Outcome measures included death, nursing home placement, and psychometric scores. RESULTS: Rate of progression increased with dementia severity as staged by the Clinical Dementia Rating at entry into the study. With respect to the dichotomous outcomes, the increase with dementia severity was more dramatic for the endpoint of nursing home entry than it was for the endpoint of death. Increased rates of cognitive decline with increased dementia severity were also obtained for psychometric scores. There was limited evidence of other predictors of progression. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of effective predictors of the rate of dementia progression extends to the very earliest stages of the disease, including what is often called MCI. A new approach to the identification of correlates of rates of progression is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".