The Differences of Clinical Features between Alzheimer's Disease and Vascular Dementia According to Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The differences in clinical features are important when differentiating between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD). There have been many studies comparing the severity of progression in both diseases. They have assessed individual symptoms but have not explained the differences and global change of progression comprehensively. We have evaluated the cognitive and non-cognitive functions at the same time and evaluated the differences between AD and VD. Methods: One hundred and thirty-eight dementia patients from Busan.Gyeongnam Dementia Association outpatient clinics were analyzed. All of the patients underwent the Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE), the expanded version of the Korean Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR), the Korean version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (K-NPI), the scales for activity of daily living, and the Short form of the Samsung Dementia Questionnaire (S-SDQ). Results: There were 93 patients with AD and 45 with VD. VD patients revealed more severe Barthel Index of Activity of Daily Living (B-ADL) deficits. AD patients had more severe memory and orientation deficiency in CDR 1 and CDR 2. VD patients revealed much faster decline of K-MMSE score between CDR 2 and CDR 3. Conclusions: These results suggest that VD patients display more severe B-ADL difficulty, while AD patients display more severe memory difficulty and disorientation. B-ADL progresses in the earlier stages in VD and in the later stages in AD. Global cognitive dysfunction progression is the opposite: in the earlier stages in AD and in the later stages in VD. J Korean Neurol Assoc 24(4):337-346, 2006
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".