Limitations of Clincal Criteria for the Diagnosis of Vascular Dementia in Clinical Trials: Is a Focus on Subcortical Vascular Dementia a Solution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular dementia (VaD) includes several different vascular mechanisms and changes in the brain, and has different causes and clinical manifestations. Critical to its conceptualization and diagnosis are definitions of the cognitive syndrome, vascular etiologies, and changes in the brain. Variation in these has resulted in different definitions of VaD, estimates of prevalence, and types and distribution of brain lesions. This definitional heterogeneity may have been a factor for negative results in prior clinical trials on VaD. We propose that the division of VaD into subtypes can identify a more homogeneous group of patients for drug trials. A so-called "subcortical" VaD could incorporate two old clinical entities "Binswanger's disease" and "the lacunar state." Small vessel disease is the primary vascular etiology, lacunar infarcts and ischemic white matter lesions are the primary type of brain lesions, the subcortical areas and frontal connections are the primary location of lesions, and a subcortical syndrome as the primary clinical manifestation. The clinical syndromes are likely more variable, and urgently need to be categorized. Selection of these patients for clinical trials could mainly be based on brain imaging features, where the essential changes and the main aspects of the lesions include extensive ischemic white matter lesions and lacunar infarcts in the deep gray and white matter structures. Subcortical VaD is expected to show a more predictable clinical picture, natural history, outcomes, and treatment responses.
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 | 0.818 | 0.910 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".