Variations in case definition affect prevalence but not outcomes of mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence estimates and 5-year outcomes of various case definitions of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: The authors examined 1,790 adults 65 years of age or older who completed neuropsychological and clinical assessments in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a 5-year, representative, prospective cohort study. RESULTS: The most commonly used case definition of MCI yielded a population prevalence estimate of 1.03% (95% CI 0.66 to 1.40). Eliminating the requirements for subjective memory complaints and intact instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) increased the prevalence to 3.02% (CI 2.40 to 3.64). Five-year outcomes, including the risk of death, institutionalization, and dementia, were not distinctly different for various case definitions of MCI, but all were at increased risk of institutionalization (RR 2.3 to 5.2) and dementia (RR 9.3 to 19.7). Regardless of the case definition, most people with MCI developed dementia, chiefly Alzheimer disease (AD). Still, for each case definition, almost one third were considered to have no cognitive impairment after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Memory complaints and intact IADL may be unnecessary requirements for a case definition of MCI in population-based samples. The MCI criteria identify people at increased risk of AD, but the potential for improvement of a substantial proportion of those with MCI needs to be acknowledged.
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".